With rallies planned today in more than 60 cities across the US, the new civil rights movement appears to be ramping up. Yesterday in Santa Maria, just up the road from the Important Blog Headquarters here in Santa Barbara, a giant rally of more than 10,000 people demanded a voice in the debate over the human rights of immigrants.
While talk of making a fugitive class out of all eleven million undocumented people in the US has largely died down, the US Congress remains divided on this issue. The complexities of immigration are hard to boil down into a ten second blog post, but there's a great discussion over on Daraka's Hoverbike.
To me, the greatest concern as I join those standing up in support of the basic human rights that even undocumented migrants deserve is that this issue is a powerful wedge that Republicans will use to cut into the Democrats' 2006 Congressional campaign. The Democratic base is very split on the issue of immigration.
It's not coincidence that this issue has suddenly appeared on the national agenda. It's a fantastic way for Republicans to distract American voters from the spectacular failure of the Repbulican agenda -- their control of the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court has produced nothing for the average American. Rather than talk about the past 5 years of Republican failure and corruption, they'd love to talk about immigration. And seeing the millions of people rising up to talk about it, that's what we'll do.
The Democrats must remain on the correct side here. They need to make a bold, unified stand against draconian immigration restrictions while working to enforce existing labor laws for all workers, not just citizens and documented migrants. Let's make sure the Democratic party gets up and fights for civil rights this time.
While talk of making a fugitive class out of all eleven million undocumented people in the US has largely died down, the US Congress remains divided on this issue. The complexities of immigration are hard to boil down into a ten second blog post, but there's a great discussion over on Daraka's Hoverbike.
To me, the greatest concern as I join those standing up in support of the basic human rights that even undocumented migrants deserve is that this issue is a powerful wedge that Republicans will use to cut into the Democrats' 2006 Congressional campaign. The Democratic base is very split on the issue of immigration.
It's not coincidence that this issue has suddenly appeared on the national agenda. It's a fantastic way for Republicans to distract American voters from the spectacular failure of the Repbulican agenda -- their control of the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court has produced nothing for the average American. Rather than talk about the past 5 years of Republican failure and corruption, they'd love to talk about immigration. And seeing the millions of people rising up to talk about it, that's what we'll do.
The Democrats must remain on the correct side here. They need to make a bold, unified stand against draconian immigration restrictions while working to enforce existing labor laws for all workers, not just citizens and documented migrants. Let's make sure the Democratic party gets up and fights for civil rights this time.
nice post e but like ive said before i think its still quite premature to call this a "new civil rights movement"...this movement still seems to be focused exclusively on one isssue (a very important one i might add) where as the civil rights movement encompassed a diversity of social justice issues from racism and homophobia to decolonization and building sustainable communities. this isnt to say that this movement might not develop to incorporate other important social justice issues but organizing around similar issues in the recent past (i.e. prop 187 and 227) have "failed" (and i use the term loosley) to develop a sustained "civil rights movement"--after these props were handled everyone went home and rested up for the next battle that affected them...
and to think others on this blog (yeah you "m"ichael "b"olton) would have everyone believe that i agree with erik on everything--everyone loves to homogenize the left no?...i dont even like erik...
Let's see, I'm a liberal who's willing to disagree with other liberals. When I do, I get insulted and accused of being a conservative. -and I'M the one "homogenizing the left?" I guess you've got me pegged.
So Erik, in writing your paper on immigration law, did you propose any kind of solution to the problem?
I've read a lot of criticism of legislation and support for immigrants rights, but not much in terms of proposed solutions. What SHOULD happen to a person who is in this country illegally? Should we have any border restrictions at all? Are you in favor of maintaining the status quo or some change in policy? I'm assuming most of these people would be happy to pay taxes if they could get minimum wage, health insurance, etc. but will the jobs stick around if that were to happen? Do you have any ideas other than repeatedly typing "The New Civil Rights Movement" at the top of every other post? Please share.
Thanks for the discussion, Carlos and Michael Bolton.
I actually did propose a solution in my paper -- and it involves a powerful movement which advocates for both workers and migrants rights.
The best immigration policy is an effective enforcement of labor protections. If all employers have to provide basic work protections to their employees -- be they citizens or non-citizens, then we'll see some big changes in immigration.
Building a higher wall, posting more border guards, and creating a fugitive class out of the hard working people who drive our economy is not the answer.
People who come across the border to work in America -- documented or not -- need the dignity of a path to citizenship and a guarantee that their work is not disposable. The status quo doesn't provide that, and I think we're seeing the start of negotiations to bring these basic ideas to fruition.
What do you all think we should do?
I think we still need to deal with the fact that to be in this country without documentation is illegal by definition, and it will be difficult to convince the majority of Americans that we should have open/unprotected borders.
If a behavior is illegal than we should be able to enforce laws prohibiting it.
Whether the behavior should be considered illegal or not is a separate issue. If the government calls a behavior illegal, turns a blind eye to the thousands of illegal immigrants who sneak over the borders, and then grants them amnesty years later, the entire law is useless.
I would propose a system where industries would dictate where they need assistance, and immigrants could be let in to work those jobs at a set wage for a required length of time with citizenship included. The system would be safer/fairer for the workers because they would have the rights of legitimate citizens.
Breaking one of a country's laws should not automatically make you worthy of citizenship in that country. In fact, logic would dictate that you would be disqualified from citizenship in that country.
No, I'm not in favor of blanket deportations, but I do feel that the borders need to be clamped down with immigration heavily regulated. It's better for the immigrants and better for the country.
I think we still need to deal with the fact that to be in this country without documentation is illegal by definition, and it will be difficult to convince the majority of Americans that we should have open/unprotected borders.
If a behavior is illegal than we should be able to enforce laws prohibiting it.
Whether the behavior should be considered illegal or not is a separate issue. If the government calls a behavior illegal, turns a blind eye to the thousands of illegal immigrants who sneak over the borders, and then grants them amnesty years later, the entire law is useless.
I would propose a system where industries would dictate where they need assistance, and immigrants could be let in to work those jobs at a set wage for a required length of time with citizenship included. The system would be safer/fairer for the workers because they would have the rights of legitimate citizens.
Breaking one of a country's laws should not automatically make you worthy of citizenship in that country. In fact, logic would dictate that you would be disqualified from citizenship in that country.
No, I'm not in favor of blanket deportations, but I do feel that the borders need to be clamped down with immigration heavily regulated. It's better for the immigrants and better for the country.
Erik somehow you think that our economy is based upon illegal immigrants. Where did you get the documentation to make such an impossible statement—
tell us it isn't the Daily Show ??
of course the irony here is that for all the talk from laslos and his ilk that this country should criminalize people wanting to migrate here is that the US was built primarily by people who were criminals, servants, and prisoners...and i'm not just talking about African slavery here. but of course like all good americans we choose what we want to remember. now im sure someone will post something naive like, "well, before there werent any laws so it wasnt illegal, hardy, har-har" of course this assumes that colonization and brutality are politically and morally ok no? i know some people on this blog seem to think so. and speaking of assumptions...
ian could you please explain:
"Whether the behavior should be considered illegal or not is a separate issue." how so? and along these lines i think your claim that people who break the laws arent entitled to citizenship runs by the same conservative logic that argues people who are in prison dont deserve full citizenship because they committed a crime. what are they then? permannetly displaced without a say in their future? sounds very democratic to me. The bigger issue here is that we really need to take a step back and ask ourselves what the whole American obsession is with criminalizing everything. The US now houses more than 2 million of the worlds 9 million prison population. why? is it because we have a bunch of people here who love committing crimes, or maybe its perhaps because theres money to be made in getting people put in jail. imagine all the money to be made if this new law gets passed in terms of housing this new "criminal" population. ah ya gotta love global capitalism!
Carlos, if people break the laws you can fine them, put them in prison, or kill them. Letting them run free does nothing. If you're saying that we should ignore the serious crimes that ARE committed, then I'd like to hear your rationale for justifying this.
You can argue that the system can be improved, but at the end of the day serious crime still needs to be punished.
Are you saying that entering the country illegally should NOT be considered a crime? I would say we could regulate entry a little better, but once a behavior is identified as illegal, then participating in that behavior is criminal by definition.
The democratic process is set up to deal with the needs of citizens, not non citizens. It sounds cruel, but it's the truth. Civil rights movements have historically dealt with groups of people who were citizens by law, yet were being deprived of rights conferred upon all citizens. This is a case in which people are entering the country illegally, and companies within the country are taking advantage of the influx of cheap labor. But at the end of the day these people are NOT citizens because they didn't go through the proper channels.
I'd like to see the system adjusted to help these people out, which is why I suggest better and fairer regulation of entry and conferrence of citizenship. However, there's a difference between depriving citizens of their rights, and non citizens demanding citizenship and the rights that go with it.
Carlos, as far as my statement on legality being an issue...
If immigration without government approval is illegal, but the government continues to allow it because it helps the economy, then whether it is legal or not is no longer the issue. Then their really is no legality at all. The immigrants are "undocumented" rather than "illegal" because the government has no interest in enforcing its own laws.
Let's take jaywalking as an example. Most police won't enforce it, and most violators recognize that it's wrong, but they jaywalk with impunity because no one will do anything about it. At the same time, if a jaywalker gets hit, they are legally screwed because they were in the street illegally.
Our case is more serious, but the principle is the same. Undocumented immigration is illegal, but the government has thrown up its hands and said "oh well." Yet, the people who perform the action know that it's a crime and persist anyway. If they get caught up, and have no documentation, they're boned... and because they didn't go through legal channels for entry, and recognize the own illegality of their actions, they really have no argument.
Ian, absolutely right.
Actually Ian absolutely wrong. While I dont want to spend five hours responding to your email i think i can nip 95 % percent of what you say by saying that you assume way too much in your argument. My original point was that we have to begin debunking the natural relationship assumed between crime and punishment. Again for example much of your argument rests on the notion that if "a behavior is identified as illegal, then participating in that behavior is criminal by definition"-- Well what gets to be classified as illegal, by whom, and for what purposes? It sure isnt the crimes that cause the greatest harm in society because if it were then companies like GM, etc. would be locked up with the keys thrown over some cliff.
Overall I think the question posed by you and even erik on this post is misguided. Instead of asking what should we do with all these immigrants, a more important question would be "Why DO we have all these migrants and who is accountable for it?" Is it because they love coming to the US to be treated unfairly? Or perhaps, and pardon my sounding like a sociologist here, that there are far greater structural issues that need to be remedied say for example neo-liberal models of development.
Ian if you were a doctor and you had a patient who had broken their leg you wouldnt just keep supplying them with pain killers would you? Sure they might feel better for a while but in the end the leg is still broken. And so it goes with this whole criminalization issue. Sure keep sending people to jail but do you really think that this will deter migration? hell no. in the end all you will get is a much larger prison industrial complex that remains ineffecient and inhumane.
so what we should be talking more about is social justice instead of criminalizing people who have been forcefully displaced as a result of global capital. not only is it arrogant to ignore this fact but its also a way of not accepting the US's own complicity in our "immigration problem".
C: Actually Ian absolutely wrong. While I dont want to spend five hours responding to your email i think i can nip 95 % percent of what you say by saying that you assume way too much in your argument. My original point was that we have to begin debunking the natural relationship assumed between crime and punishment. Again for example much of your argument rests on the notion that if "a behavior is identified as illegal, then participating in that behavior is criminal by definition"-- Well what gets to be classified as illegal, by whom, and for what purposes? It sure isnt the crimes that cause the greatest harm in society because if it were then companies like GM, etc. would be locked up with the keys thrown over some cliff.
I: So we should change the definition of illegal to fit what/whose standard? Like the man says, there is nothing so depraved in human experience that you can't find some expert somewhere to say it's okay. Can you offer me a reason why the standard for determining illegality should be changed based on your say so, and what should it be changed to?
C: Overall I think the question posed by you and even erik on this post is misguided. Instead of asking what should we do with all these immigrants, a more important question would be "Why DO we have all these migrants and who is accountable for it?" Is it because they love coming to the US to be treated unfairly? Or perhaps, and pardon my sounding like a sociologist here, that there are far greater structural issues that need to be remedied say for example neo-liberal models of development.
I: A better question... Why is America the only country in the world required to accept immigrants at any time for any reason, and even ones that don't bother to follow regulations? If you tried to immigrate to any other country under these circumstances, they'd laugh you to scorn.
To answer to anser one of your questions, apparently unfair treatment in American is superior to fair treatment in their own country. THAT'S why they're willing to deal with it.
Why do we have all these migrants and who is accountable for it? If they sneak across a border illegally, then obviously they want to be here, and they're accountable for it because they didn't go through the proper channels and committed a crime. That's pretty obvious.
C: Ian if you were a doctor and you had a patient who had broken their leg you wouldnt just keep supplying them with pain killers would you? Sure they might feel better for a while but in the end the leg is still broken. And so it goes with this whole criminalization issue. Sure keep sending people to jail but do you really think that this will deter migration? hell no. in the end all you will get is a much larger prison industrial complex that remains ineffecient and inhumane.
I: After a while, a broken bone will reknit itself. Our problem is not self correcting.
I was treating sending people to prison as an issue apart from immigration, but what are your options? Unfortunately, even if the system is flawed (and we haven't decided that this is necessarily true) you still have a person who committed a crime without documentation. Either you turn a blind eye to the crime or you enforce it. Selective enforcement of crime is crime.
C: so what we should be talking more about is social justice instead of criminalizing people who have been forcefully displaced as a result of global capital. not only is it arrogant to ignore this fact but its also a way of not accepting the US's own complicity in our "immigration problem".
I: When people break the law, they criminalize themselves. The U.S. didn't force them to immigrate illegally.
Would you be happy if the U.S. clamped down on the borders and refused to let anyone else over? It's a serious question. It would prevent illegal immigration, and then this entire discussion thread would cease to exist because there would be no more undocumented immigration.
Another serious question: Does the U.S. have the right to evict people that it did not give permission to enter? If illegality means anything, then the answer is "yes."
Keep in mind, I'm conceding that the U.S. has not been actively enforcing border policies because the illegals are helpful to some. But the bottom line is that until the utopian society is built, undocumented immigration is still illegal, and the U.S. has a right to enforce its laws.
It's not like they don't know that what they do is illegal.
By the way...
civil rights
n : right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality [syn: civil right]
This is courtesy of dictionary.com, just so that you know the source. The bottom line is the term "civil rights" applies to citizens by definition, and is therefore not applicable here.
lets make this one quick:
rush limbaugh's child: So we should change the definition of illegal to fit what/whose standard? Can you offer me a reason why the standard for determining illegality should be changed based on your say so, and what should it be changed to?
big daddy: i guess the best way to answer this question is that the people who SHOULDNT be allowed to define this are those whose interest it is in to criminalizze certain populations...i.e. private prison lobbies. i never said it should be changed to my defenition--i never offered one since it would contradict my point. read carefully...
o'reilly's nephew: I was treating sending people to prison as an issue apart from immigration
big daddy: doesnt make sense in the context of the recent legislation before us all
newt's posse member: A better question... Why is America the only country in the world required to accept immigrants at any time for any reason, and even ones that don't bother to follow regulations?
big daddy: your americancentered diatribe again reveals your arrogance. the u.s. was the topic of discussion but obviously we could have very similar conversations for other colonial centers such as England, France, etc. the world doesnt revolve around you cool guy...the conversation WAS about the US though...
Hannity's homeboy: When people break the law, they criminalize themselves. The U.S. didn't force them to immigrate illegally.
big daddy: this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard...look up push and pull factors in your local globalization text. sure the US didnt hold a gun to their heads (well at least not for all of them--see US military intervention on those) they just made it hard for them to make a living wage and feed their families.
cheneys breath mint: This is courtesy of dictionary.com, just so that you know the source. The bottom line is the term "civil rights" applies to citizens by definition, and is therefore not applicable here
big daddy: obviously this is from USA dictionary.com since apparently no other countries have "citizenship" based on your wack definition. in any case perhaps we need to think of a better defenition of citizenship (i can provide this upon request) but you might also want to look up "human rights" while your hanging out with your very conservative friendly dictionary.
stop and think before you send another comment that again doesnt question the context in which we choose to criminalize people and instead is all about dealing with effects as oppossed to talking about causes...we can go in circles all day talking about dealing with effects--democratic and republican leaders love doing this which is why i say eff them both...
Carlos, very mature of you to partake in name calling.
So, I'm Limbaugh's child, O'Reilly's nephew, Newt's posse member, Hannity's homeboy and Cheney's breathmint? I'm arrogant for pointing out differences between the U.S. and other countries in immigration style and policy? I think I'm a cool guy that the world revolves around? I make an argument and I get dealt with by name calling? Wow.
Well, let's see...
The most obvious item I see is that the definition I posted was for "civil rights" and not "citizenship." I haven't looked up the definitions for other words or terms yet, but if you'd like to supply any, please feel free.
I dealt with immigration and prison as separate issues because it sounded like you were speaking of society's tendency to criminalize and lock up in general terms that were not necessarily tied to the immigration discussion.
I wasn't saying that you had provided a standard for us, but I was asking you to supply one and to state why it would be better. See, anyone who would question the existing standard has to come up with a better one. I was genuinely interested in hearing what you had to say.
As ridiculous as my pronouncement may be, I'm glad you concede that the U.S. did not hold guns to these peoples heads and force them to immigrate.
And as shocking as it may be, I find myself agreeing with the Manoa Blogger for the first time, possibly EVER. This really has turned into the F anyone who doesn't agree with Erik board.
For the record, opposition to illegal immigration does not automatically make one a conservative. Many black leaders, the overwhelming majority of whom are liberals, are concerned about illegal immigration because they believe the growing hispanic population is cutting into their political power, and more than a few have voiced their opinons on this matter.
So Ian, are you ever going to start your own blog? You obviously have the time, interest, and typing skills. What's keeping you below the fold? Is someone paying you by the word to comment on Erik's blog?
Carlos, congrats on making it through two posts in a row before you broke down and started throwing your own feces. This is growth.
funny how everyone only focuses on the humorous elements of my commentary--or as michael bolton seems to call it my "feces throwing." by the way how does it taste?
i have yet to hear anything substantive about my commentary--only journalistic assumptions and putting words in my mouth or ignoring the context i.e.:
"As ridiculous as my pronouncement may be, I'm glad you concede that the U.S. did not hold guns to these peoples heads and force them to immigrate."
as they say inorance must be bliss. pathetic i tell you.
...i guess i never got the memo about how this was a "serious" blog for seriously sensitive and mature people. apologies for assuming some of you were friends of mr love and accordingly would appreciate an occassional hateful comment. wackness i tell you...
OK, enough of the feces on the board. I think we all have enough of a sense of humor to appreciate that the crack about "Cheney's breath mint" was slightly funny, but let's keep the discussion on the issues.
And the issue here, apparently, is:
1) Are these protests part of a new civil rights movement?
2) People breaking the law deserve punishment, right?
3) What do 2006 electoral politics have to do with this issue?
4) What should immigration policy look like in the US?
OK.
1a) I submit that Carlos is wrong when he says that this movement is focused on just one issue -- immigration policy. In fact, there are signs that the movement is working to incorporate labor and other progressive causes. We're just getting started.
1b) Ian, calling this a civil rights movement is correct. Civil rights apply to all humans, regardless of arbitrary and changing citizenship definitions. The right to pursue happiness applies to all United States persons -- whether citizens or not. The fight for the rights of more than 11 million people in the US sounds like a civil rights issue to me.
1c) MB, calling this a movement is also a tactical move, I admit. Movements have more legitimacy than protests, and already we're fighting an uphill media battle. Get on the right side of this.
2a) Ian, I think you realize that this issue is far more complex than simply "they're here illegally, therefore they should be punished with prison or deportation." The people closest to criminals deserving punishment are the employers who knowingly and persistently hire undocumented workers and force them to work in unsafe conditions with under-the-table wages that are well below the minimum. The workers who come here without a visa are just trying to provide for their families.
2b) The problem comes in that the US government put the number of temporary work visas at a ridiculously and unrealistically low number (~120,000 per year) while in reality the economy demands about 400,000 per year. So no matter how high the wall is built along the southern border, no matter how many guns we put along the border and at our airports, the lure of an American job will bring people here, with or without a visa.
2c) Simply living in America without a visa, working hard, paying into the social security system, and providing an indespensible service for our economy does not mean that you should be immediately deported or imprisoned. This is draconian and unacceptable, and I'm sure that you agree with this, Ian. Eventually, as Carlos says, we need to drop the narrow view of "if it's illegal, punish them" to acknowledge the reality of the situation -- undocumented workers came here at the request of American business, and they deserve humane treatment.
2d) The argument that "it's illegal, so arrest them" was also used to block the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. Just today, Alabama voted to remove the convictions given to people disobeying segregation laws in the 1960's. Only took about 40 years. Doing something that's against the law doesn't make it wrong, or even bad. Maybe the law needs changing.
3) It is clear to me that the reason the provocative Republican laws which would criminalize not only undocumented workers but also anyone who helped them obtain basic social services was merely a ploy to attract attention, forcing the Democrats to take up this issue going into the 2006 elections. Rather than talking about the dismal failure of the Republican Congress and the Republican White House, we're now talking about immigration. This is unfortunate, because there are more pressing needs to address in America than reforming immigration policy.
4a) Our immigration policy should not take any lessons from Europe or anywhere else. We in the US have led the world in immigration policy, flawed as ours is. We don't have riots like in France, and we don't deny citizenship based on race as in Japan and Germany. We should be proud of this, and work to make our policy more realistic and more humane as we move forward.
4b) As I've said elsewhere, the best immigration policy is an effective enforcement of labor protections. If all employers have to provide basic work protections to their employees -- be they citizens or non-citizens, then we'll see some big changes in immigration.
4c) The idea of redoubling our border patrol is a waste of resources that would be better spent on labor enforcement.
4d) A path to citizenship for all hard working people in America is a bedrock principle upon which our great nation was founded. Get on board.
Wow, Carlos complaining about people being too serious and not responding substantively. This from the guy who just a few posts ago said:
"but after thinking hard about it i think the most appropriate response to your ridiculous post would be the following: Fuck you and do us all a favor and take your hypocritical morality and shove it up your kulo."
Obviously he's grown up a lot since then. -And the Cheney's breath mint thing was much more creative.