Anti-immigration groups and pundits cling to phrases like "Illegal Alien" because they only focus on foreignness and danger. These extreme factions are all about casting immigrants as what ails our society, conjuring up demons upon which to focus national ire, and perpetuating a subhuman category of being. It’s a convenient distraction from things that are actually endangering our nation. A new web-only series from ColorLines called "Torn Apart by Deportation"is the perfect antidote to people like CNN’s Lou Dobbs.
The stories in this series are thoroughly investigated, not sensationalized, and haunting. "Torn Apart" reveals how the push against immigrants in the U.S. is, once all the pieces come together, a cultural death wish on families of color. "Torn Apart" gives faces and feelings to the results of the nation’s post-1996 immigration policies, which made it easier deport undocumented people for any criminal infraction. Two articles are currently available:
- "Home in Name Only" follows Calvin James, who was deported after living in the US since the age of 12, back to Kingston, Jamaica. James is percieved as an undesirable and unwanted part of Jamaican society, which pins its crime rates on deportees. James was uprooted from a loving, productive life in the US and cast into a criminal class spanning two nations.
- "Double Punishment" explores the nexus that people like James find themselves in, where they suffer under a clash of laws that target immigrants and criminals in a justice system already slanted against people of color.
Wiretap tackles the issue of the upcoming census count slated for Spring 2010. The census has become a point of political contention and moved abruptly away from its very practical purpose of counting all people in the country. Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) are trying to add an amendment to an appropriations bill that would include a question about citizenship status to the census form, disrupting the entire well-established process of the census. The move would also cement growing fear in immigrant communities that the census is not to be trusted.
Further, it’s simply too late to raise questions like this. As M. Junaid Levesque-Alam writes, "two congressionally mandated deadlines for registering objections [to the census form as it stands] have already passed." Surely Vitter and Bennet are quite aware of this. Then again, as Levesque-Alam makes clear, the intended effect of the amendment is primarily "to dissuade undocumented residents from participating in the census out of fear that the information will be shared with other government agencies and lead to deportation." It is, yet again, one more Republican political maneuver has no consideration for the damage such legislation causes.
Misguided and troublesome attempts to legislate hate are rippling out and hurting other communities. America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200, negatively impacts the African American community in it’s attempts to deny immigrants access to health care, as TPM reports. And Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) anti-immigrant agenda hurts the working class, according to The Washington Independent. A new report released Tuesday by "three labor and employment advocacy organizations," points the finger squarely at the Bush administration policies that leave undocumented and legal workers alike open to exploitation.
When workers are afraid to report their employers for abusive practices, they are exploited further. When there is a labor conflict, abusive employers will summon ICE and simply provoke a raid before the dispute is resolved. It adds up to a situation that keeps wages artificially suppressed and many workers voiceless. As Daphne Eviatar writes, "labor complaints are not supposed to lead to retaliation against illegal immigrants."
Even LA police chief Willam J. Bratton writes that "a person reporting a crime should never fear being deported." Yet they have good reason to. As the Colorado Independent reported last Wednesday, the 287(g) agreement "has resulted in a ‘sweep of terror," according to a floor speech given by 2nd Rep. Jared Polis on the same day. His speech came as a reaction to the announcement by ICE last Friday that it was signing 67 more 287(g) agreements.
Irresponsible pundits, racist legislation and exploitative labor conditions are all the symptoms of a nation wrestling with a fundamental truth: United, we stand. Divided, we fall. The healing we need lies not in harsher means to divide or separate, but in a new body of laws that exemplifies that age-old and beloved maxim.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.



16 Comments







Actually, people “cling to phrases like ‘Illegal Alien’” because they are semantically correct: it’s the watered down PC catchphrases that are inaccurate and designed to spin.
“United, we stand. Divided, we fall.” Yep, but how do you define “we” in this context? Does it include murderers from Mara Salvatrucha 13 who entered illegally?
Sorry about the messed up italics in the previous post: I guess you can only edit once.
Here’s a question I have often asked but never gotten a non-hypocritical answer to: What do you say to the family of someone killed by an illegal alien?
Pretty much the same thing you say to the family of someone killed by a multi conviction drunk driver or the same thing that is said to the family of someone killed by the son of the Mayor or Governor who had been let off from previous charges because of their political connections: “I’m terribly sorry for your loss”
Hi, dakine01,
Three questions, if you please:
Do you advocate letting multi conviction drunk drivers stay on the road?
Do you advocate letting politically connected criminals go free?
Do you advocate letting illegal aliens stay?
If you answer all three “No” then we think alike. If you answer all three “Yes” then I really think you’re nuts. If your answers are mixed (like, “No,” “No,” “Yes”) then your comparison is invalid.
If my comparison is invalid, so is your strawman argument on undocumented immigrants as such a threat to the natural order.
For some reason, against all logic, the US is still the place where many folks wish to immigrate to. So let me ask you this, what should be done to the folks who hire undocumented immigrants? Should they get a pass because “well, they’re in business to make money so they can make more by paying sub-standard wages to undocumented immigrants” Wouldn’t we all be better off, paying good wages to US workers and undocumented immigrants and try to raise the life standards for all?
Because if you are giving a pass to the employers, then your argument is just as invalid to me as mine are to you.
“Because if you are giving a pass to the employers, then your argument is just as invalid to me as mine are to you.”
Except I’m not and never said I was, so where does that leave you?
I asked about one cause of preventable deaths: your “answer” was that there are also other causes, which is really no answer at all.
Do you have an answer?
If your strawman argument about “what do you say to the family of someone killed by an Illegal alien” is valid, so are my questions. But the reality is, they are apples and oranges. And yes, I have no problem with undocumented immigrants getting driver’s licenses. Why? Because then we can also work to assure that their cars are on the highway safely, require them to have insurance and no who is driving.
But I also notice you failed to answer my question, even when parroting it back to me. So I ask again, should folks who employ undocumented immigrants get a pass on hiring them? After all, someone has to be providing jobs to those undocumented immigrants that you seem to dislike so much. Those immigrants are not coming here just to be beaten to death by haters. Someone is paying them once they get here. But of course, businesses are allowed to hire whomever they want right? After all, it’s the American way to screw the worker, whether they are citizens or undocumented.
You say I didn’t answer your question about whether I am in favor of giving a pass to employers of illegals. What part of “I’m not and never said I was” is unclear to you? It sounds like a pretty straightforward answer to me.
“what do you say to the family of someone killed by an Illegal alien” isn’t a strawman argument. If you support allowing illegals to enter and to stay then you support the situation that results in the preventable death of anyone killed by an illegal.
Well, it sure seems as if the employers hiring undocumented immigrants would have a lot of bearing on those undocumented immigrants being in the US available to “cause a preventable accident” and that the employers should be punished significantly might go a ways to address your concern.
And BTW, what are the statistics of undocumented immigrants causing accidents and deaths on the highways? Just how big a problem is it?
“Well, it sure seems as if the employers hiring undocumented immigrants would have a lot of bearing on those undocumented immigrants being in the US available to “cause a preventable accident” and that the employers should be punished significantly might go a ways to address your concern.”
Yes, I agree, but you’re still not answering my question.
“Just how big a problem is it?”
Does it matter (in relation to my question)? I recall a case where an illegal crashed a car into an ice cream parlor and killed several kids. So in relation to my question please imagine this. The mother of those kids comes comes to you and says, “You oppose strict policies of border security, enforcement and deportation that might have saved my children. What do you have to say for yourself?”
I realize it’s a tough question, but I also think it’s a fair one.
I’m sorry if I’m not giving you the answer you want to hear. Is it a problem? Yes. What are your solutions? A fence? Armed troops along the entirety of the US border (and not just the Southern border either, as the Canadian border is just as wide open as the Mexican border?
Are you concerned about the undocumented immigrants from Europe? Or is it just the southern border that has you all twisted up.
I don’t have the answers. But I still contend that your question is not a serious one as there ARE no single actions that can be taken by the US to stop the immigrants. What do YOU suggest we do?
And for the record, I am familiar with a couple of cases in Colorado and California where undocumented immigrants had been released and later were involved in fatal accidents. Somehow I do doubt that it is quite as large of a problem as you believe it to be. Is it a bad thing that it happened? Of course. And as I said, if asked what I would say to the mother in that situation, I would say, “I am terribly sorry for your loss.”
How would you have had the government at any level stop this from occurring? What is your solution?
Mother: “You oppose strict policies of border security, enforcement and deportation that might have saved my children. What do you have to say for yourself?”
You: “It is a bad thing that it happened. I am terribly sorry for your loss.”
I suspect she would find that answer rather unsatisfying (as do I), but you’re not a hypocrite, dakine01.
What do I suggest? The obvious: improved border security, workplace verification, severe penalties for the employers of illegals, allowing police to check immigration status, swift deportation of illegals.
We can discuss that if you wish, but it’s irrelevant to my original question which was about your moral position in supporting policies that get people killed (or opposing policies that would have saved them). On that issue your final answer is, “I am terribly sorry” ?
OK, so how do you propose “improved border security” on both the north and south borders? And it has to be both.
Police already check immigration status I believe. I think that’s a component of the changes Sec Napolitanowas discussing in the last week or two. Employers are already supposed to do “workplace verification” all along (either that or all the employers who’ve made me fill out the I-9 form on my first day on the job were only wasting my time)
How do you propose dealing with situations with a family where the parents are undocumented immigrants but the children are citizens? “Swift Deportation” might not be such a family value trait. Or is it OK to break up families when they are different shades than you?
And how would the policies I support “get people killed” and how would you enforce them?
And speaking of policies that “get people killed” I assume you are working to stop the poisoning of air and ground water by chemicals? I assume you are working to stop the availability of handguns and AK47s since those probably cause far more “preventable deaths” than all the undocumented immigrants in car accidents in the last fifty years combined.
The fence has had some effect in the areas it’s been put up, but I’m not a fan of that solution. Fences don’t stop people, just slow them down. How about one or two observation satellites in geosynchronous orbit over the southern border and fast response teams waiting for an alert? And no: it does not have to be both borders, why should it? If 85% of the problem comes from “A” and 15% from “B” why insist on splitting your resources evenly instead of concentration on the biggest source of the problem?
I hadn’t heard about Napolitano changing policies: last I heard police were not allowed to ask. Thank you, I will check on that.
“workplace verification” as currently implemented is a joke, didn’t you know?
Illegal parents with citizen children: thanks again, I forgot to mention in my suggestions revising the 16th Amendment to follow the original intent.
“different shades”? You’re the only one talking about race: you’re not a bigot, are you?
How do the policies you support get people killed? We already covered that and you agreed it was a “bad thing.”
Actually no. The northern border is just as porous and subject to abuse as the southern border, but the shade of skin of people who come over illegally from Canada is usually lighter than that on the southern border. The actual numbers of undocumented immigrants coming in that way is maybe not 50% but it’s a damn sight higher than 15%.
Build a ten foot fence and they bring an eleven foot ladder.
How do intend we pay for spy satellites to spy on us? Which is what the result of your satellite wish would be?
Ah, the old “original intent” applied to the 16th amendment. I think you most likely mean the 14th amendment but of course, you would want to revise the amendment that made full citizens of all. (as well as revise the amendment authorizing an income tax).
What percentage comes from Canada? You can research it if you like, but since you agree there’s more traffic across the southern border it makes sense to secure that one first, don’t you think? Big hole, little hole: which is the logical priority?
Satellites would cost less than the fence and try to curb the paranoia, please: the target area is mostly empty desert and the necessary resolution wouldn’t be much greater than Google Earth. They would need infrared, too, but that’s even less invasive of privacy.
14th/16th: LOL! Not sure if that was a simple typo or a Freudian slip (I’m not very fond of the 16th, either: is anyone?) but yes: I meant the 14th.