Posted on 05/22/2006 4:01:24 PM PDT by SJackson
Roberto Rodriguez Anti-immigrants like to bandy about the phrase: "What is it about illegal you don't understand?" And they go ballistic over "amnesty" at the thought of treating all human beings equally and humanely.
Here's a question that should help clarify the meaning of "illegal": In U.S. history, which of the following were not simply common practice, but legal?
A. Forced removal of native peoples and the theft of their lands.
B. Slavery, segregation and racial discrimination, and the denial of voting rights to women.
C. Mass internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent and the mass repatriation of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent.
If you answered yes to all of them, you would be correct. But let's fast forward to 2006. Which country asserts the right to:
A. Wage pre-emptive and permanent war against nations that do not pose an imminent threat?
B. Secretly and indefinitely detain suspects incommunicado, without charges, at home and also outside of its legal system, while exempting its military from the international war crimes tribunal and claiming that the Geneva Conventions on war do not apply to this nation?
C. Spy on its own citizens outside of the law, and also asserts the right to use the military for domestic purposes?
If you guessed the United States right again. The U.S. formulation of what is legal/illegal emanates from its military sector. (Since the 1950s, the United States has overthrown dozens of legitimate governments and propped up brutal military dictatorships.) President Bush is but carrying on a tradition that says that whatever he says is legal, is legal, or else.
Truthfully, that legal/illegal formulation, in relation to immigration, can be traced to a much earlier era when Europeans first arrived on this continent.
Americans like to collectively forget/deny that Europeans never had the legal right to seize lands or peoples (as slaves or subjects). American Indian law scholar Steven Newcomb, author of "Five Hundred Years of Injustice," has long argued that Euro-Americans have never established a recognized international legal claim to any land in the Americas. The basis for such claims comes from the so-called doctrine of discovery and the Catholic papal bulls of the 15th and 16th centuries that "gave" European powers the "right" to divide up and conquer the non-Christian world.
Law scholar Sharon Helen Venne, author of "Our Elders Understand Our Rights," also asserts that the institution of the law itself was created by Europeans to specifically deny indigenous peoples their humanity and their rights as human beings and as peoples, thus facilitating land theft and attempts to eliminate and/or dehumanize native populations.
This history is the context of legality/illegality with regard to immigration. It includes a clearly illegal war against Mexico in the 1840s and a history that has treated Indians-Mexicans as demonic, uncivilized and criminal and now equates them with terrorism. The only reason immigration is illegal in relation to Mexicans is because this society continues to view Mexicans most of whom are indigenous-based peoples as subhuman.
The book "Decade of Betrayal," by Francisco E. Balderrama and Raymond Rodriguez, reveals the inhumane anti-Mexican U.S. deportation policies during the 20th century. Additionally, an examination of laws regulating immigration from Canada and Mexico shows that they've always favored the northern border. Historically, Canadians were able to cross into the United States for six months, no questions asked. After those six months, there were no migra hunter battalions looking for them or other Europeans who had overstayed their visas. All sides fail to address the fact that 40 percent of the undocumented population comes in this way. Yet government always finds a way to single out and hunt down Mexicans.
It's time to repeat the phrase: What is it about illegal you don't understand?
There actually is an alternative, by way of the policies of the European Union, that would solve this crisis overnight. All workers from member nations are eligible to work in each others' countries, without losing their rights, citizenship or humanity.
Thus, we can clearly see that notions of illegality are arbitrary. As University of New Mexico scholar Margaret Montoya notes, all law is narrative. That's why if this nation wants to sign multinational agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (U.S., Canada and Mexico) or CAFTA (Central America) or the FTAA (Americas), then human beings cannot be left out of the equation. That's the narrative being inscribed in the jungles of Chiapas and by millions of people marching on U.S. streets: that "no human being is illegal."
Shall we debate the meaning of amnesty and who actually needs it?
We also need to get rid of the wheel, the printed word and fire. Then we can rename the country "Me Tarzan - You Jane."
You notice that, in this piece, the US is on trial here, because we only allow a million immigrants per year, instead of who knows how many this guy thinks would be the magic number.
Not on trial is Mexico, which bleeds people at the rate of 3/4 million a year, who walk, run, or crawl across some of the worst terrain in the world to get away from it, despite the fact that it is one of the biggest oil producers in the world, and an important manufacturing country in its own right. By rights it should be a net importer of manpower, and it will be if it ever gets its corruption and endemic criminality under control. Until then wave after wave of its people will be forced out, and this writer fails to find that noteworthy.
No, its just us under his magnifying glass. We open our doors to a million people a year, legally. All we ask is for the others to wait their turn. That makes us anti-immigrant racists, in this guy's universe.
Yup. It would be cheaper and less disruptive to just send every Mexican citizen a check for staying home.
You are absolutely right, which is why I'm removing the words "taxes, income tax, W2, SSI#, withholding, Internal Revenue Service, license(of any sort) and law(s) from my vocabulary.
FMCDH(BITS)
I'm glad this came up.
Ever since that, "that depends on what the definition of "is" is.." episode, I have looked at our dictionary with a suspect eye.
I truly am glad that more and more, "that is not really what that word means..." folks are coming out of the closet.
Whew......
If they post a surety bond and promise not to use any of our services, conduct all affairs in English and leave their families at home, I might be pursuaded.
That's correct, since we all know the lefties' favorite Thomas Jefferson quote is "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism"...except that it's not really a T.J. quote
It is beyond me why some people agree with those who can't even present a rational argument.
Time to call the Waaaahmbulance - another Libroid is having an anxiety attack.
"When the rats and the MSM stopped using the term illegal aliens and went first to undocumented immigrants and then to just immigrants, we lost the language war."
But the good news is this - the media have continued to lose their audience because of just the behavior you mentioned.
As the Hippy said, "KEWL, Man - their dogma ran over their karma".
Before you get flamed, are you a proponent of that tripe or are you, (as a conservative) merely bringing this trash to our collective attention?
Indeed. I wish Mr. Rodriquez would name that country so we can see if they'd be willing to train our Border Patrol.
Pretty rich coming from a guy with the surname of "Rodriguez." Last I heard Spain was a part of Europe.
This entire "law is only a narrative" argument is one of the tenets of the cryptomarxist "Critical Law" fashion and leads inescapably to the idea that law is only a reflection of oppressive power structures. The difficulty with that is that so is remediation. Rodriguez is trying an old leftist flimflam - he is quoting laws that do not even presently exist to judge a time when they couldn't have by standards he would like to apply to the present. Silliness.
(1) Where is the Barf Alert????
(2) Roberto Rodriguez of Madison, E-mail: XColumn@gmail.com writes: "There actually is an alternative, by way of the policies of the European Union, that would solve this crisis overnight. All workers from member nations are eligible to work in each others' countries, without losing their rights, citizenship or humanity."
Roberto Rodriguez is a lunatic, right up there with the other "It takes a Village" lunatics. Calling Rodney King... why can't we all get along???
--- No Borders mean no Country
Reduce Crime - Make more things legal.
Donde esta el Barf Alert?
Good Luck and write if you can!:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.