On Tuesday, Latinos and their allies in cities across the United States participated in actions demanding an immediate end to the controversial SCOMM program, a major driver of the Obama Administration’s record-breaking 1 million deportations. These actions, led by Presente.org and local partner groups, were fueled by our urgent concern that the overwhelming majority of the people deported under SCOMM are not hardened criminals, who the program is designed to target, but low-level offenders and even people who have committed no crime whatsoever. Rather than respond in a serious manner to the petitions that we delivered to the Obama campaign, the Administration decided to obfuscate the truth in a blog post by Cecilia Munoz, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Administration’s primary Latina spokesperson on immigration.
In the post, audaciously titled “In the Debate Over Immigration and Deportations, the Facts Matter,” Munoz made a number of spurious claims, including that ‘Today more than half of all removals are people with criminal records.” This “fact” is misleading on multiple levels. First, Munoz is talking about all deportations, not those produced through SCOMM, which was the explicit focus of our actions, and which DHS records show deported far more non-criminals or low-level offenders (79 percent) than serious criminals. Second, not all criminal records are the same; Munoz is lumping together anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime, including small-time traffic offenders. People who have raped or committed murder are a lot different than people booked for driving without a license, and to insinuate otherwise is shameful.
Sadly, Munoz’ post is just one example of the Administrations’ fuzzy math on immigration and its growing desperation not to lose Latino votes. But there is something even more disingenuous in her words, which is the assertion that the president’s hands are tied on immigration policy. As Munoz writes “…the only way to do what’s necessary is for Congress to act and pass bipartisan legislation the President can sign into law.”
This is simply untrue. As the head of the executive branch, the president has broad discretion in the enforcement of immigration laws. He can place a moratorium on the deportation of DREAM Act students, he can end SCOMM, and he can drastically reduce the thousands of family separations that are the inevitable result of his current approach. His unwillingness to do these things, which have been repeatedly called for by Presente.org and numerous other groups, has nothing to do with Congress and everything to do with burnishing his enforcement credentials for the 2012 election.
This is the single most important fact about current American immigration policy, and it is one that Presente.org and our allies will continue to raise awareness about until it changes. Munoz’ statements don’t just harm immigrants and Latino communities. They also endanger the chances that her boss, President Obama, will be re-elected.
Every pollster in America will tell you that for the president to win re-election, he must garner a significant percentage of Latino votes. SCOMM, the, massive and controversial deportations program that President Obama is championing , is one sure way for him to lose the election.
Other posts in this series: On Immigration and Detention, the Facts Matter Indeed, 8/17/2011



72 Comments

As I suggested in this diary:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/15/1007204/-To-the-neoliberals-on-this-site
the Administration engages in meaningless bickering with its most loyal faction, the liberals, while at the same time failing to recognize its part-share in the neoliberal victory over the public at large.
The odds that Obama will end SCOMM are about zero, and so worrying “for” the Administration is a waste of breath. I really doubt, then, that Obama is after “enforcement credentials” so much as that this is an exercise of the police state he actually wants.
On immigration, facts matter. So do frames. I saw a picture of an assembly of folks petitioning a redres of their grievance over this matter. A guy was holding up a sign that said Oppose ‘Secure Communities.’ Nobody’s brain registered the quote marks. Brains registered only that some people are opposed to secure communities.
Reactionaries of both parties are very clever about naming, and framing, their legislation and policies. Progressives need to come up with a strategy to counter the clever. Repeating right wing frames, even with quotation marks, doesn’t cut it.
Thansk Felipe. Keep at ‘em.
You really cut to the heart of what is so deceitful about the White House blog post, Felipe. To say “Unfortunately, as the President has said, he needs a dance partner across the aisle to move legislation forward, and so far the floor is empty” is just wrong.
He certainly had the ability to raise the number of annual deportations under Bush, are we now supposed to believe he doesn’t have the power to lower them unless the Republicans give him permission?
Excellent post. Thank you so much for writing this.
Every pollster in America will tell you that for the president to win re-election, he must garner a significant percentage of Latino votes. SCOMM, the, massive and controversial deportations program that President Obama is championing , is one sure way for him to lose the election.
those the God’s wish to destroy they make blind first.
We need polling of hispanic voters does O’s stand on Hispanic issues make you ( Hispanic you’s) want to vote for Obama and or the Democrats next election.
The President wants to run on his *cough* record lets indulge him:)
“the president’s hands are tied on . . .” is the public messaging mantra of the Obama administration. All kinds of power but no kinds of responsibility. Such is the essential bullshit of the institutional technocrat.
S-COMM is meant to play on US public anxieties about “illegal immigrant crime”–the bullshit that spews from the Dobbses and Becks of the propaganda machine–while working to deport as many folks as possible. “Crime” is not the real point.
“As the head of the executive branch, the president has broad discretion in the enforcement of immigration laws.”
Indeed he does. However, his actions, and those of Munoz, indicate that he doesn’t give a fuck about the people negatively effected by these “laws.” With all the indifference of his predecessor, Obama, and those with real power and money whose interests S-COMM serves, walk on a road of bones.
Yes Superb post. Thanks.
But it’s not just the Hispanics. It’s also the unions, the black caucus, and lots of liberals of all stripes. If the White House is not in full panic mode they are not in touch with reality.
Immigration rights protest were bigger and in more cities than Glen Beck’s Tea Bagger rallies I wrote several diaries on that subject Obama cannot claim his actions regarding immigration are popular with the majority of voters.
Obama’s poll numbers suggest otherwise a Black President cannot get Cred with racist voters for acting racist even if they were a majority of voters which they are not Obama’s actions are not regarding Hispanics are not winning him new friends but they are costing him his old ones.
Its typical high school behavior to fit in sometimes kids ditch their old friends to try and run with the popular kids.
Well to be fair to teens Obama is ditching all his majority non racist friends who got him elected and is trying to score points by dissing his Hispanic friends by calling us all crooks. Just so he can hang with the unpopular Tea Bagger crowd Rep Ryan their poster boy went from being mentioned as a possible VP to being the most unpopular politician in America with a job. Newt and Sarah beat him but they hold no elected office now. what teen tries to hang with the unpopular kids and ditches the popular kids who got him elected President?
I might be legal but I have lots of speeding tickets now I have to worry about having ID when I drive or I risk getting deported because I’m brown.
Nazi guards always asked for your papers please in the WW2 movies.
I was under the impression that the President wanted to run on the fact of his being better than the Republicans. Didn’t Jane detail Obama 2012 nine days ago?
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/09/obamas-2008-hope-morphs-into-2012-slash-and-burn/
Which Republican is going to beat Obama again?
with the job market in its present condition and likely to get worse the plight of the illegal immigrant will only get worse and worse- nothing can change that-certainly not more petitions
How come the CEO’s of companies are not going to jail for hiring illegal immigrants but illegals can be deported for speeding tickets?
Call SS ask if a worker’s SS number is valid its pretty simple and there is no excuse for hiring illegals and saying you did not know!
If you accept Obama’s position on illegal immigration you can’t call his approach fair since it only targets the workers not the people who hire them.
Thats like giving a plague victim cough syrup and not going after the disease with antibiotics.
Keep Going Strong!
Never give up.
Felipe, my feelings on Obama are that he will use any excuse, and I mean ANY excuse to keep from being a real leader. The next excuse will probably be that the dog ate his homework on these issues.
As we can clearly see in his early campaign bus tour he is showing us a re-run of the last campaign. Don’t laugh because it’s true. I speak truth/twooph on this. Nothing has changed for regular citizens and those that aspire to be during his residency. We’ve seen this movie and are not interested in the Re-RUN!
The only change is that he using excuses or blaming congress or bipartisanship. We need a real leader in the country and not a rat fink.
recommended and tweeted
If FDL offered gold stars for posts that educate, I would give you five of them as I learned a lot by reading your post.
For example, I am ashamed to say that I had no idea that Obama administration has participated in over 1 million deportations. That is an astounding piece of information nor was I aware of the Secure Communities BS.
I was not familiar with Presente.org although I am very familiar and friends with members of LULAC here in Texas. I just visited the Presente site. They too look like a great organization for Latinos and human rights in general.
Following is quote from Paulo Freire that was on this the site. Few Americans have ever even heard of him and I haven’t though of him for several years until I saw this quote on Presente. Paulo Freire was a Brazilian educator and is among most the influential educational thinkers of the late 20th century.
Here is the Freire quote from Presente: “ Washing one’s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. ”
You’ve inspire me. I’ll write a post on my site about Freire.
THANKS AGAIN AND KEEP ON WRITING.
It is never possible to underestimate the wisdom of desperate voters. They tend to just speed the downward spiral. My untrained eye — in this setting they will choose the loudest most macho voice. Even if it is Bachman or a Perry falsetto.
I had the same reaction. WTF kind of name is SCOMM.
FYI, we had three companies here in the Houston area over the past several years where the owners and senior management were fined AND went to prison for hiring illegals. Lots of them. One company, if I recall, was into textiles and ICE found 34 illegals working at their factory on the east side.
But, I thought our plan was to keep the good ones and send the criminals back. Did I miss a memo?
A caveat: The above comment is in no way meant to be defeatist. There are many ways folks can engage in practical actions on behalf of Latino immigrants. Check out Presente.org for starters. Or, if you are interested in other hands on activities, there are many other organizations out there as well. The Border Action Networ, No More Deaths, and Los Angeles del Desierto are some examples.
jbade thats why many immigrants are going back to Mexico, S America, and probably Poland, Ireland etc on Polish and Irish immigrants in Chicago we have many I wish I had numbers of how many are going back because of the economy and how many are being deported it sure would look bad for Obama if only the brown are getting deported.
If thats true Obama can forget the Hispanic vote. Lots of Irish bars in Forrest Park near Chicago lots of Irish and Polish illegals no INS raids from what I see.
But of course I need numbers to prove this is widespread.
When the CEO’s of McDonald’s and Wallmart both companies have hired illegals in the past and paid record fines go to jail I will believe O is serious.
the black caucus reflects “group loyalty” and will vote for Obama even after he is caught eating the pet dog.
Indeed Obama is expecting a landslide win after going so far to the rigt, so Firedog complaints anger his majesty because we do not understand how much further to the right things can get – and he has that victory of a sellout to the health industry we should adore (and where is that gay love for his bold move of following the courts).
Seems Firepups seeing more liberal victories from a Senate that blocks retreat on FDR and LBJ when those ideas are proposed by a GOPer are getting to Obama – meaning he agrees with the reasoning.
Well, with voter turnout at 10%, courtesy of O pissing off his base (blacks, unions, Hispanics, progressives) and radical Rs firing up theirs, I’d say just about any pissant from the crazy right could win. No sane person will vote for prez in 2012 by the time November comes around.
suprisingly Ron Paul rejects e-verify and any attempt to deport- he would also like to make mass immigration legal- contingent on if they had a contract with an employer
it should be noted that paul wants to have such contracts outside government interference. if a employer wanted to contract with a chinese worker for a loaf of bread a day that would be acceptable
the desire unlimited labor to push down wages to their lowest possible amount- of course no benefits
no benefits for Americans who do not want to work for the loaf
I agree – and I don’t care
At this point I vote for “anyone but Obama” – ABO is my candidate.
“Short on facts, long on desperation.”
Nail, meet hammer.
The “you’re not being fair to this poor president” argument is so shallow, desperate, and just plain WRONG it’s pathetic.
To quote a line from a song a fabulous diarest here pointed me to, Just Go, Obomba (along with your head-in-the-sand
352926 percenters).Any one with a brain rejects e-verify its a pork project for corporations hire a few more SS workers to man the phones and the SS office computers as employers call in to see if their workers numbers are legit and their workers match the description of the SS numbers plus are 2 people using the same SS number.
e-verify is like that high tech border wall Boeing built to stop illegals it won’t work but its pork for a politically favored company.
that you would still expect positive from the BigO is amazing- how many times does he need to kick you in the teeth before you say enough
That is just not true. John Conyers has been consistently critical of Obama, as has Maxine Waters.
They’re voting for leadership, which is how people like John Conyers keep their chairmanships (of Judiciary). Maxine Waters wants Financial Services when Barney goes. That’s up to Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi keeps her leadership position by doing what the White House wants. They keep their leadership positions by doing Nancy Pelosi wants. So chalking it all up to race is really not accurate.
corporations do not support e verify-fact they want an over abundance of labor they want 10 competeing for one job their legal status is irrelevant
you need to have competition for that loaf of bread
Scarecrow is here, and we were just saying the same thing. It’s such an astute post on every level — Felipe’s analysis of the political dynamic, of what’s possible, of what the points of leverage are, as well as his moral clarity and honesty are extremely impressive.
Five gold stars indeed.
And wait til you meet Gaby Pacheco and Juan Rodriguez and the other DREAM activists. They are all just amazing and inspirational. In a cynical political environment, they give me hope. It’s one of the rare places I see true leadership emerging.
Some CEO’s vote wrong – and must be made an example of by the local DA – and in Texas in a world where Obama does not put in liberal DA’s, voting wrong is not voting for the right wing – and contributing toward the right wing. Obama has yet to stop Rove folks and their games.
So has Obama fixed the Governor Don Siegelman political conviction that presidential advisor Karl Rove and officials of the U.S. Department of Justice did to gain political advantage.
On March 6, 2009, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld key bribery, conspiracy and obstruction counts against Siegelman and refused his request for a new trial, finding no evidence that the conviction was unjust.
But did our liberal guy, our lawyer, seeing the injustice, issue a pardon?
A second for LULAC.
Also, in terms of education on this subject, for those who aren’t familiar with the work of Roy Germano, you all might like to check out his website: http://roygermano.wordpress.com/ He also did a documentary called, “The Other Side of Immigration.” It is available on Netflix.
I am not so certain. Have you seen the clips of Maxine Walters and the rallys for work?.
One of my initial thoughts about the Arizona “papers please” law was that a latino cop might pull over a couple of bluehaired snowbirds from Iowa wintering in Scottsdale on suspicion they might be illegal Canadians.
Why not? Fair’s fair, right? And it would make an interesting headline.
Mr. Matos,
thanks for the diary & the name of your org – I’ve signed up for your email list. I’m on a LOT of Dem email lists, having lived in Seattle for 20+ years and having been to lots and lots of Dem things …
Maybe this 51 year old white guy doesn’t notice the notices of upcoming actions in the Latino community … or … maybe there ain’t notices to notice!
Your post made me recall a BIG immigration protest that happened downtown … last year? this year? … and it made me recall I really didn’t notice any notices of the protest on all my drippy lib email lists. oh well.
good luck with your efforts.
Pitting us peee-ons against each other is a wonderfully effective tactic for the pigs at the top getting to stay on top and getting to stay pigs – it has worked for centuries, in all kinds of isms.
rmm.
The breaking up of families is a terrible thing, and Obama’s (characteristic) lying about it is wrong. Any action to make sure that he is not re-elected, including this one, is welcome. SCOMM should be ended.
But there is another side to the story. There are a lot of US citizens, including Hispanic Americans, that are unhappy with illegal immigrants particularly during a severe economic downturn. That’s a fact.
Why hasn’t President Felipe Calderon objected to the deportation of so many Mexicans from the U.S.? While Mexico in the past has been harsh on illegal immigrants, it has recently loosened up. Under Mexico’s new immigration law Mexican police are not allowed to stop people on the suspicion that they are in the country illegally. People who cross the border into Mexico, primarily from Guatemala, without papers are guilty of a civil (not criminal) offense. Irregular migrants who are discovered are sent to a noncriminal detention facility, not jail. Their cases are not handled by the criminal courts, but by a separate administrative system.
Also, if a Mexican police officer detects an illegal migrant, he cannot detain him for deportation. Only immigration authorities can do that.
The U.S. is becoming a leading police state, with uncontrolled ICE and Border Patrol agents taking the place of regular, properly trained police.
O is the greatest corporate pawn ever.
Who else could destroy the Dem party. It’s DOA now. There is no chance for its revival. Honestly look at all the leaders. They all sold their souls for the almighty dollar. And they have all betrayed their fellow Americans.
O didn’t do this. But he and Rahm sure helped.
The entire Dem leadership has flipped to the dark side. UnFingbelievable. Pure genius. They already had the Rs. And now they have all the Ds. The corporatist party owns the place.
“and even people who have committed no crime whatsoever.”
Oh please! If you are in this country illegally, you have commited an crime, and most likely more then just one. Period.
The theft of 40% of Mexico and corporate imperialism, on the other hand, are mere historical hiccups.
Maybe Calderon’s Harvard buddies support the Obama police state.
Part of the point Matos was trying to make was about the nature of crime and the validity of conflating serious, violent crimes and professional criminals with the crime of “illegal immigration” and misdemeanors. Are all crimes equal? Is it a crime that “illegal immigrants” are the victims of US immigration policies that have always existed for the benefit of US business and profit? Is it a crime that the parents of Mexican immigrants happen to fuck outside the borders of the US, a border that is the result of the violent conquest of half of what used to be Mexico? Is it a crime for a citizen of a nation that is economically exploited by the US and where the minimum wage is one-fifth that of the US to cross the border to better provide for your family? What sorts of crimes are these and in what context have they occurred?
When the new border wall was being built, Calderon compared it to the Berlin wall.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=5c1d19c6-dd0a-47dc-9896-a2068b1393ea
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461709,00.html
I recently was educating newer Asian immigrants in DC on this and related issue who were making “interesting” statements about Latinos as these groups are new to this continent, culturally isolated and don’t know better but are very influential on US political issues regarding China and India. They know about the Native nations but are ignorant of Latino issues and need to be educated immediatamente. They are decent folks, have a philosophical framing (non-Christian) and I’d target outreach for DC, NYC, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland and San Diego off the top of my head.
Oh please! If you are
in this country illegally, a member of the Bush Cartel, a Wallstreet banker, a defense contractor providing services to the state department, a revolving door lobbiest, a prosecuter under the influence of the White House, etc. etc. you have commited a[n] crime, and most likely more tha[e]n just one. Period.Fixed it for you.
I am still waiting on an answer to this question.
Well he had to say something if he wanted to keep his job. Tell me when he withdraws from NAFTA.
Do you really believe Obama wouldn’t do the open borders thing if it weren’t so unpopular? Just about everybody in power wants more, not less immigration: the major media, business groups, universities, agriculture groups. The only ones not signed on to the open borders mission is a majority of the public.
Here’s my present systems model …
It’s open borders for inanimate objects and the human beings the 1%ers deem the slaves of the international caste society subject tocertain protocols. Here’s a bit on how The Machine works:
“No One Is Illegal (featuring Charlie Veitch and The Kindness Offensive)” (May 14, 2011)
So, the 1%ers have an international black market, circular migration to drive up no-wage labor with the proper financial system manipulations. Even elements within the UN are in on it.
The Whistleblower (2011) – Official Trailer [HD]”
How you set that up in part is with centralization and systematic, strategic geographical partitions with a proper British Common law “legal” veneer.
You also must have a consolidated communication channels dominated by a spying and propaganda machine like Mr. Murdoch’s operation.
A variation on the RussianG looks like the preferred model the 1%ers would like to roll out now.
“now I have to worry about having ID when I drive”
Now you have to worry? Driving without your license has been illegal for as long as I can remember.
“Nazi guards always asked for your papers…”
So do the greeters at CostCo. Hell, even the librarian wants my ID, that overgrown Hitler youth!
This is a shocking story — KENNEWICK, WA — city council candidate who calls for murder of illegal immigrants advances from primary (coming in 2nd) to general
“Are all crimes equal?”
Of course not, nor should all punishments be the same. So the question is, what is an appropriate punishment for being in a place you have no legal authority to be? Being sent away certainly seems mild enough.
sometimes we give people to much credit. i knew a stanford mba who could not pass the series 7 test to become a stockbroker. just because oblabla did well at school doesn’t mean he has what it takes to be a leader or president. right now he seems like an intellectual pigmy desparately in need of a henry higgins. maybe we should have hired mrs O instead…
I am so sick of the White House meme of how Obama’s hands are tied. So, why the hell bother to elect a president? Obama can fuck himself.
And your point is what? That if they get a pass then everyone else should, too?
Look at it the other way around: if we can’t even manage to find and deport people who entered the country illegally how on earth can we manage to prosecute serious bigshots?
The question is, what is the definition of legal authority, who decides, who is obliged to obey, from where does the legality and authority derive, what is the context of that legal authority? The question is, why does legal authority seem to always throw trump against human rights and freedom, and why is there apparently such an ever-greater scarcity in the US of the latter?
To your first: unless you’re a total anarchist the answers are self-evident.
To your second: I’m unaware of a human right to enter any country you choose at will, perhaps you could enlighten me?
ironymeter,
There is nothing about the first question that is self-evident unless one are a religious fundamentalist, or some other type of control addict.
The point of the second question–just like the point of my original comment and that was part of Matos’ post–is about relative value. Why are laws and authority more valuable than freedom and human rights (e.g. “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”)?
ottogrendel: “self-evident” was something of a play on words, or even a hint that the answer to both your questions is found here:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
I notice you are still presuming there is a human right to enter any country you choose at will, without telling us where the hell you got that idea.
Ironymeter,
Ah ha! My apologies. I did miss the play on words. But the Declaration of Independence does not provide us with the answers we are looking for here. It only provides a location, a space, a structure. “The consent of the governed” is important here as well, which relates to the issue of authority and deference to it.
Where the hell did I get the idea that there is a human right to enter any country? Well, part of my point was about the context of these “crimes” as well as what I see to be a very small amount of public support for freedom and human rights when it comes to immigration in the US, ideas the US is supposed to hold dearer than any other nation. Or, what might constitute an appropriate response by someone whose access to “the pursuit of happiness” has been crushed by the very nation that labels them criminals when they attempt a redress of grievances? Is one obliged to obey unjust laws? And if so, what is the point of “the consent of the governed”? Do the values in the Declaration not extend to “all men”?
To answer your question more specifically, I, as one of the governed, got the idea out of my head from my interaction with my environment. Or perhaps God gave the idea of this inalienable right to me? Although, if someone can take away another’s freedom thorough the construction of borders, where does the notion of “right” come in? And again, we are back to figuring out relative values between freedom and human rights versus “legal authority.” My prejudice is that one is free if they act free, and all the laws and borders in the world have nothing to do with that.
The US could demonstrate faith in its religion of the Free Market and let it decide who lives where?
Which do you think offers better protection to people’s rights: the rule of law or the rule of the jungle? To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men There’s the answer to your question about the context of the legal authority: in order to protect their rights people created governments and gave them the authority to enact laws to which all would be subject.
You asked, “from where does the legality and authority derive” and that answer is also there: deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. WTP chose to give the government that authority. Especially in those days it was possible to just start walking and eventually reach a place where there were no laws to restrict you. Or to protect you.
You asked, “Who decides?” and the answer is that — in a society with representative government — ultimately the people decide. The government once used its authority to outlaw alcohol: the governed withdrew their consent and the law was repealed.
You asked, “who is obliged to obey?” You’re familiar with the concept ot the Social Contract, of course? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract The answer is, anyone choosing to be part of the society in question, whichever one it is. Find another if you don’t like this one (that’s a general observation, not directed personally at you, and yes: I realize relocation isn’t always practical).
You got the idea of a human right to enter any country you choose at will from “my interaction with my environment”? But the whole point of an organized society is that it is UNnatural: it creates restrictions and protections not found in the environment. Do I have a human right to wander into your bedroom in exercise of my freedom?
I’m not sure that either law or the jungle offers better protection for rights. I’m likewise not sure that rules have anything to do with freedom. Indeed, I think the more one has of the former, the less one has of the latter.
Sure, we the people are part of the equation if one accepts the idealized model for government in the US. However, if someone in another country is adversely affected by the policies of the US, if the laws of the US intrude upon their lives, then what do we mean by the consent of the governed and the legitimacy of legal authority. As soon as the laws, policies, physical force and money of the US leave the boundaries of that state, and therefore end up governing the lives of those who are not US citizens without formalized political avenues to participate in a government that it is controlling their lives or often stealing from them, then we need to figure out what we mean by legal authority, legitimate government, citizenship and criminality. Should those who are not citizens of the US but who bear the brunt of policies that deprive them of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” not be part of who decides? And if those who are not citizens can’t vote, what should be a reasonable, proactive course of action for those who have had their rights or property compromised?
Like “legal authority,” what a social contract should entail is debatable. This is not an issue of whether it should exist but of what form it should take. Essential to this contract is the validity of law and authority: the age-old question about obedience to unjust laws and what throws trump, institutional authority or the moral conscience of the individual. Or, does a US citizen have an obligation to the state within whose boundaries the live beyond paying taxes for services they receive? What social contract should a displaced Mexican farmer have with the state whose business practices cost him his farm? Are our only options to completely obey all the laws of the state or otherwise leave it? This “choice” suggests–apart from an extreme notion of compliance–perhaps that the state is not an expression of those who comprise it, perhaps not a result of the consent of the governed.
By “my environment,” I meant that in the broadest sense to include the world as I have experienced it. I meant to say that this is what I have learned. The value judgements that I derive from this learning leads me to conclude that (in this simplistic dichotomy here) freedom is preferable to governance. And I’m not sure that organized society is unnatural. We are social animals after all.
Do you have human right to wander into my bedroom? Absolutely. Just as I have the right to my response to your action.
I’m reminded now of this observation by Woody Allen on the Ku Klux Klan: “I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats.”
“I’m not sure that either law or the jungle offers better protection for rights.”
Tell that to the people Charles Manson didn’t get to kill because he was locked up.
“I think the more one has of the former (rules), the less one has of the latter (freedom).”
Agreed: there’s a point of diminishing returns where sufficient regulation exists to protect people’s rights, and more would unnecessary impinge on their freedoms.
“What social contract should a displaced Mexican farmer have with the state whose business practices cost him his farm?”
My job was outsourced to India: do I now have a social contract with them that allows me to got there and receive free health care and education for my kids?
“Are our only options to completely obey all the laws of the state or otherwise leave it?”
Oh, please. This site is full of people working to change existing laws, and sometimes succeeding. It’s not an either/or.
“By “my environment,” I meant that in the broadest sense to include the world as I have experienced it.”
That’s how I took it.
“freedom is preferable to governance”
Are you back to proposing anarchy or thinking more along the lines of diminishing returns I mentioned before?
“And I’m not sure that organized society is unnatural. We are social animals after all.”
And in our most natural form of social organization the strong impose their will upon the weak, depriving them of their rights. Perhaps I should have said civilized society instead of organized?
“Do you have human right to wander into my bedroom? Absolutely. Just as I have the right to my response to your action.”
So your position is that the displaced Mexican farmer has a human right to enter the US, and I have a human right to greet him with Woody Allen’s baseball bat?
1. The law often works for the right of safety but the jungle for many others.
3. No, you don’t have a social contract. That was my point. The question was when that social contract is gone, what might be a reasonable response. What are these free things that Latino immigrants are receiving? The research shows that they pay more in taxes than they get back in benefits.
4. You suggested an either/or with your variation of the “love it or leave it” argument, not me.
6. “Off goes the head of the king, and tyranny gives way to freedom. The change seems abysmal. Then, bit by bit, the face of freedom hardens, and by and by it is the old face of tyranny. Then another cycle, and another. But under the play of all these opposites there is something fundamental and permanent — the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free.” –H. L. Mencken
7. It’s a question of freedom.
“My job was outsourced to India . . .”
So, here’s the rub then. You got screwed over by the same forces that are screwing over South American farmers and your response is to put the responsibility on the people who had as little power over their situation as you? You are upset with otherwise powerless people who took it upon themselves to redress their grievances, instead of deferring to some “legal authority over which they have no control? Why do their actions bother you? Why are you defending the social contract you entered into that got shredded? How does being upset with people in a similar boat to yours help you?
Ironymeter, I see now why you have not responded to the question about what the moral course of action is when confronted by unjust “legal authority.”
When finding one’s quality of life compromised by powers outside their control, it is an easy thing to attack those with less power than to attack those with more. And when we can’t act to redress our grievances, we often don’t like it when others do. It points out our inaction and impotence. This is how we arrive at the idea that Latino “illegal immigrants” who did something about getting screwed by “legal authority” are getting something for free. It provides, by blaming the powerless, the path of least resistance to solving the problem of why our lives have gotten worse. It gets us out of the question of what we are going to do about injustice and the even more difficult prospect of then acting on our conclusions.
The trouble is, this idea is a lie. Not only do “illegal immigrants” not get anything for free (In what parallel universe do they get free health care in the US? What would the cost of groceries in the US be without their labor? Why do they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, especially in the states with the highest amount of Latino immigration?), but also because of the policies of “legal authority” the total quality of their lives has been diminished. The only “evidence” for the lie that they are getting something for free comes from the TV’s Two Minutes Hate. The lie benefits corporate profit and politicians who run on platforms of fear. It is the oldest political trick in the book—indeed, it is the essential political trick: A politician manufactures a fear and then insists that they have the solution, as long as we support them at the ballot box. Have you fallen for this con? Have you identified with the “legal authority” behind both outsourcing and driving Latin Americans off their farms?
“The law often works for the right of safety but the jungle for many others”
That’s rather unclear but I assume you mean the law isn’t perfect? I agree; neither is my wife but that doesn’t mean I’m turning my back on the whole thing.
“No, you don’t have a social contract (with India). That was my point. The question was when that social contract is gone”
My point is that a social contract never existed between myself and India or between Mexican farmers and the US. If I go to India then I am voluntarily signing on to the social contract as it exists in that society. If a Mexican farmer comes here he’s doing the same thing, and part of the social contract is obeying the law.
“What are these free things that Latino immigrants are receiving?”
Do not play dumb. Do their children attend public schools? Do they go to emergency rooms for medical care?
“The research shows that they pay more in taxes than they get back in benefits.”
I’ve seen highly suspect research that says that, and also research that says the opposite. It’s hard to measure a shadow population: what is the total dollar amount of taxes paid by illegal aliens in 2010?
“7. It’s a question of freedom.”
I’m not sure to what you are referring. Civilized society vs. organized society or my “freedom” to beat someone with a bat?
“You got screwed over by the same forces that are screwing over South American farmers and your response is to put the responsibility on the people who had as little power over their situation as you?”
Please quote where I blamed them for anything except violating US law.
“You are upset with otherwise powerless people who took it upon themselves to redress their grievances”
Better dust your crystal ball: it’s not giving you a clear view inside my head. Perhaps you should listen to what I say instead of trying to assign me motives that suit your preconceptions?
Then please explain how illegally immigrating to the US is “redressing their grievances.” Their legitimate grievance is primarily with their own government (with whom they have a social contract) which signed off on the trade agreements that destroyed small farms. It’s fair to say they have a secondary grievance with the US government, but (A) they never had a social contract with the US, and (B) they’re not moving into the offices/homes of the Congressmen/Senators/business interests who screwed them, are they? The problem with your trying to frame them as victims fighting back is that they aren’t taking the fight to the people who screwed them.
“I see now why you have not responded to the question about what the moral course of action is when confronted by unjust “legal authority.” “
No, you don’t: in fact, you are so off-base it’s laughable. You presume I have some animosity towards this group when, in fact, all I have ever asked is that they follow the same laws as everyone else in the jurisdiction of those laws. What a novel concept that is, huh? Treat everyone the same. I do give you due credit for being smarter than the average, though: you didn’t jump to the conclusion that I’m a racist.
The reason I have not addressed the question of whether one should obey unjust laws is (A) I do not believe — and you certainly have not proven — that it unjust for a sovereign nation to enact laws abut who may or may not enter. Especially when the legislators who craft those laws can be removed and replaced if WTP don’t like what they are doing. Also (B) that’s really a whole nother can of worms, don’t you think? If you want to open that can then please do post a diary about the moral obligation to oppose an unjust law: I’ll be happy to share my thoughts and (spoiler alert!) I’ll be mentioning that Dr. King (whom I regard as one of our greatest heroes) noted that “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”
I believe Dr. King would have entirely supported an illegal alien who crossed the border and went straight to the local TV station saying “Call the cops, I have violated your law in protest to it’s unjustness.” I doubt he’d have been on the side of someone who paid the coyote extra for a stolen social security number.
1. I meant that there are freedoms that have nothing to do with the law. The thinking here is along the lines of the H. L. Mencken quote above.
2. You are basing your conclusions here on the assumption that the US and its policies, money and power stop at its borders. Or, and this is the big point about obeying the law, why do Mexican farmers come to the US? If their actions are partly in response to US policies that have compromised their quality of life, than the issue is not so cut and dried as simply labeling them criminals, unless one assumes all “legal authority” should always be obeyed.
3. Except that “illegal immigrants” pay more in taxes than they receive in services. So where does the free part come in?
4. I’ve seen research that says global warming is bunk too. Why is research that says “illegal immigrants” pay more than they get highly suspect to you, because it is inaccurate or because it doesn’t fit your framework? When they get a stolen SS number or an employer pays into that system when they hire them, do they see that SS money?
5. “So your position is that the displaced Mexican farmer has a human right to enter the US, and I have a human right to greet him with Woody Allen’s baseball bat?” Only if you first defend to your death their right to cross. It is an issue of freedom for all parties concerned, isn’t it? Ironically, Ironymeter, you seem to have missed the irony of Woody Allen’s comment.
6. The blame lies in your false assertion that they are getting something in the US for which they are not paying, in your assertion that they are criminals and goldbrickers, and in your neglect to consider the context of their actions.
7. I have listened quite clearly. I have assigned you no motives. You provided those in stating your biases.
8. The redress of grievances does not take place on a level playing field. What is missing from your assessment is relationships of power, and in this case, their imbalance.
9. If you have no animosity toward this group, then why agree with the lie that they are getting something for nothing? Why insist on their criminality without regard to the context of the laws or consider how the “legal authority” and policies of the US crosses its own borders, negatively affecting the pursuit of happiness of these “criminals”? Why lay the lion’s share of blame for crime at the feet of those with the least amount of power in the equation? I haven’t jumped to any conclusions, here. I think you are intelligent and not a racist. I do think that you are misinformed about exactly what some immigrants are getting out of being “illegal.”
10. It has to do not with the legitimacy to write laws but the legitimacy of the laws, the legitimacy of “legal authority,” the relative power of WTP and who gets included as the people. It is about what one does when affected by laws over which they have no control, especially when the policies of the US first cross the border and, in my opinion, commit a crime against those outside of its national boundaries. The nut of our disagreement here lies in our relative deference to the law, its context, and relationships of power. For me, the justness of law does not lie with “legal authority,” especially when that authority does not represent all those affected by the laws it creates. Following this bias, I can’t prove to you the justness of a law, in the same way I don’t think “legal authority” can either. Only you can decide this for yourself.
“Illegal immigrants” accept the penalty of their actions everyday in having to sell their farms, in leaving their homes, in not seeing their families, in being detained, and sometimes in their own deaths trying to cross the Sonoran Desert. You may be right about King’s response, but I suspect these people are more interested in feeding their families than in political protest.
“I meant that there are freedoms that have nothing to do with the law.”
I agree, but history shows that without the protection of the law those freedoms will be abridged by whoever has the biggest club. Everyone everywhere has the right to freedom of religion, but without the protection of the law exercising it can get you killed.
“You are basing your conclusions here on the assumption that the US and its policies, money and power stop at its borders.”
No, it’s US legal jurisdiction that starts at the border. Remember when Michael Fay was caned in Singapore? Their country, their laws. When he entered he placed himself under the jurisdiction of their law.
“unless one assumes all “legal authority” should always be obeyed.”
Under what circumstances is it acceptable for individuals to decide which laws they will and will not obey?
“Except that “illegal immigrants” pay more in taxes than they receive in services.”
Really? As I asked before, what is the total dollar amount of taxes paid by illegal aliens in 2010?
“Why is research that says “illegal immigrants” pay more than they get highly suspect to you”
As I said, it’s hard to measure a shadow population. When looking at research (an area I was trained in back in my school days) I evaluate the methodology. Not all research programs are created equal.
“When they get a stolen SS number or an employer pays into that system when they hire them, do they see that SS money?”
What percentage of illegals are using stolen SS numbers as opposed to being paid under the table? Are they accurately claiming their dependents on the W-4 and filing 1040′s? Incidentally, since identity theft is a crime you might not want to harp too much on that point.
“Only if you first defend to your death their right to cross.”
Huh? You didn’t mention that you’d defend to the death my right to wander into your bedroom: you just said you had a right to a response of your choosing.
“The blame lies in your false assertion that they are getting something in the US for which they are not paying”
Like education and medical care?
“criminals and goldbrickers”
It’s a bad sign when you have to start putting words — especially slurs — in my mouth. Where did I say goldbricker? As for criminal, what would you say is the correct term for someone who deliberately violates one or more laws?
“I have assigned you no motives.”
Wrong:
“It provides, by blaming the powerless, the path of least resistance to solving the problem of why our lives have gotten worse. It gets us out of the question of what we are going to do about injustice and the even more difficult prospect of then acting on our conclusions.”
And:
“If you have no animosity toward this group, then why…”
“The redress of grievances does not take place on a level playing field.”
What is missing from your assessment is that their “redress” is not being directed at the people with whom they have a grievance. I believe you even pointed out how the PTB find it advantageous to have this easily-abused population present? In what way are the people who harmed them being made to pay?
“the lie that they are getting something for nothing?”
Is it a lie? Still waiting for your documentation.
“the policies of the US first cross the border and, in my opinion, commit a crime against those outside of its national boundaries.”
What is the crime? What law of Mexico, Guatemala, etc. has been violated?
“The nut of our disagreement here lies in our relative deference to the law”
Pretty much. I’d agree there’s a moral obligation to oppose unjust laws, but (A) opposing doesn’t always mean breaking, and (B) I really don’t see anything unjust about a nation requiring that people obtain permission to enter.
“I suspect these people are more interested in feeding their families than in political protest.”
Certainly: and they are willing to commit criminal acts to do so. This isn’t some inspiring popular uprising seeking “redress of grievances,” for the most part it’s just a whole lot of people desperate enough to break the law. I can understand that, I can empathize with that, I have actually done that myself in sufficiently desperate times in order to provide for my family. I am, however, honest enough to call it what it is: a crime, not some great and noble attempt to balance the unjust scales of society.
I said “for the most part” because there’s another aspect we haven’t even touched on: professional criminals. Drug smugglers, gun runners, human traffickers, gang members, murderers and rapists feeling the authorities in their home country. Although not the majority they do exist in the illegal population and they violate the rights and freedoms of the innocent with their actions.
By the way, I’m really enjoying our discussion. It’s rare to find someone who’ll actually talk about the issues instead of just screaming “racist.”
p.s. That was supposed to be “fleeing the authorities” not “feeling the authorities.” TSA grope jokes are welcome ;^)
Here’s part of the answer:
(excerpt from “Is this Why DOJ Is Sheltering Colombian Terrorists?,” by emptywheel, Aug. 21, 2011)