Politics in Review: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, or When It Simply Gets on My Last Nerve

Editor's Comment: This post was originally written in July of 2007. At that time, the discussion on immigration was highly charged. The controversy of rather one was a racist because they did not agree with the political correct of the left polarized the debate. The middle ground fell away and left any idea of compromise stagnate. This re-posting of my 2007 blog comes by the way of Internet Archive -- Way Back Machine -- from my blog of the same name but of a different web hosting service that is now offline. In the last segment of this in UPDATED section. The discussion takes into context the present situation of the illegal immigrant or undocumented worker as viewed in the current presidential race of 2012.

In a recent column, in my local paper here (July 2007), in Denver, Colorado, USA, we have a space in the newspaper for the “people” called Colorado Voices. This “supported” space gives the paper the ability to say that it is “fair and balance,” in presenting all commentary in regards to the opposition and their “ideas.”

However, and there is a however, The Denver Post, the local paper, I speak of, and of our two daily newspapers (the other was the Rocky Mountain News), the more liberal has situated the Colorado Voices guest author in a “no win” situation. The author, Bellie Louden (a deputy sheriff and an army veteran) and, in case you are interested, a black American (raised in Oklahoma), has touted the argument once more, “What part of the illegal do you not understand?” And, considering her background (admittedly on my part cultivating a stereotype) for the respect of the “chain-of-command,” “rigidity to regulations,” and “rule-of-law” I am not surprised.

With that said her column “I’m a Racist?” (see link here) punctuates the political discourse in this country of late—emotional hyperbole and ad hominem attacks if one does not like what a person has to say—you call them a name. This type of discourse, naturally, does a disservice and continually recreates the environment of a “cognitive dissonant” in America. A society of polarization, animosity, and vitriol deconstructs the middle for compromise and rationality. Both side of the immigration are in the extreme of emotionalism. The environs of such a culture create polarization, vehemence, and a place where the word of “compromise” is lambasted and chastised—and ad hominem attacked for the mere suggestion.

Finding the middle (or near middle) has been this country forte, and at times, the extremes has also been exercised as well. Nevertheless, what my local paper did (most cleverly) has subverted the deputy sheriff’s argument, because of their previously editorial commentaries regarding the immigration issue. Her assertion is this: let’s get back to the place of “rational,” or at the least, “presented rational” to come across as common sense. Her attitude is this: Simply, the law has been broken by golly and that is the end of the argument. Period. In essence, the moment the illegal alien, or undocumented worker, or whatever political correct term is correct, crossed the border illegally they are a criminal.

As common sense as that view is, it ignores the history of immigration of the illegal alien. To be sure, the history of this country was built on “undocumented worker.” One did not have to such documentation during the expansion of this country (before Ellis Island).

Moreover, Louden is mistaken, slavery did not begin the process of “oppression” as inferred by the author, it began when one group determines it is “superior” to another group and not equal in status. This is not defined by race, creed, or color for that matter, it is decided by the dominate society’s perception view of reality. Both sides are staking a claim to a position that is indefensible—both sides are racist (see the recent Leonard Pitts, Jr. see link here ) to some degree, even within the same racial category. Take note this is not an indictment but a recapitulation of cultural reality. 

This is also goes to prove a point, reiterated by anthropologists, who have been stating for a quite, race is an arbitrary and defined by one’s own cultural ideals and core beliefs.

This nation was built on undocumented workers.  The building of the nation’s railroad by the Chinese (coming from the West Coast) and the Irish (coming from the East Coast) among many others as well. One should also take note that immigrants were not process through Ellis Island or similar areas until late into the 19^th century. If one had a strong, a willingness to “build” the institutions of America (this includes farming)—come hither. There were exceptions, of course, slavery. But one of the roots of slavery and its “ill advised attitudes” (misconceptions) was economics and core beliefs of superiority that relegated the tolerance of such ideas.

The South contended, for one of its reasons that, it was economic necessity for slavery to be maintained. The unfair economic power, of the North, put them at a disadvantage. The dictating of domestic policy, of “how to run” their economies was a state issue. Moreover, the inventions to follow, such as the cotton gin, were years away, and the subsequent industrialization of manual labor had not been foreseen yet. Granted, one of the failing of the human conditions is its ability to be shortsighted.

Nonetheless, the core of the South assertion was they could not survive, nor would the country (if they had ceded control) without the “cheap” access to labor, or in the view many plantation owners—their “property.” This is the same assertion for those of the pro “undocumented worker,” in that, the contributory factors far outweigh the con side of the discourse and the contention that the undocumented are inter-connected into our economy.

Overall, this assertion by pro immigration is specious, because it does a disservice to the discussion. The illegal immigrate or undocumented worker are inextricably more complex than simple slogans and platitudes. Admittedly, the undocumented worker issue is generational, in fact, since the founding of the country. Moreover, the exasperation of the last twenty years notwithstanding is not because of the “ill-advised” machinations of the late 1980’s immigration policy, but the lack of enforcement and the surrender to “big business” for labor.

Additionally, the Western hemisphere’s free trade agreements, especially in regards to Mexico because of its proximity. Furthermore, both parties (Republicans and Democrats) have effectively ignored this issue by not responsibly adjusting the legal immigration levels accordingly and letting a series of perfect storm domestic policies come to fruition and create this present maelstrom.. And, there is another factor—the war.
.

The critics of the present day legal and illegal immigration have noted that the borders (to the south primarily) are sieves and no concerted effort to secure them has been made. And, there seem to be no “urgency” even after September 11^th. Those who want to destroy us, they say, can and are, will harm us. These assessments are valid enough, but lest we forget those who attacked us, were in the country legally and came in the front door.

Furthermore, and I will concede this assessment, however, if the present President Bush's administration had secured the borders and the ports in the days following 9/11 attacks, it would not have the resistance it has today (in regards to immigration issue). But they did not, and now it looks disingenuous when they say they will because of national security. Evidenced by the lack of results, even though for the last six years essentially created the atmosphere of fear, and to be very afraid of the enemy outside.

The Barbarians are storming the gates!

President Bush's administration has contended that in the interest of national security, the borders need to be secure. Nevertheless, the results prove otherwise, and based on those results illustrates something is of more importance: access to cheap labor. Some proclaim this as “economic slavery;” that these people have no voice and no choice. Not true and not so. Those who advocate for the illegal alien and the undocumented worker are speaking for them. And for as no choice, these individuals could stay in the conditions they left behind—abject poverty, or they should stay in fight their government to correct institutional corruption and better wages (as some see it).

True enough, but that is not how human nature works. We do what is easy, even though there may be a slightly higher risk temporarily. The slightly higher risk, in the short term (like crossing a border), is outweighed by long term gains. Trying to overhaul, overthrow, Mexican and Central American institutions would require a major portion of time, at the least, and civil war, at the worst.

Moreover, for people who have little already, the risk of such a venture requires a major commitment that proves impractical. In part, administrations of the present and past are in fault of the present conditions of immigration. As mentioned earlier, free trade agreements of this hemisphere has led to the exasperation of the immigration issue. For instance, within these agreements are the inequities of farmer subsidies (see link). Put simply, US farmers yes—and all others no. Thus, creating an unequal competition in what is suppose to be a free trade and free market access agreement.

Another aspect of the free trade (especially in regards to NAFTA) has caused constitutional changes in property rights—citizens’ property rights are now subject to the whim of the state—and now this inequity in trade, in property right, in obtaining a level of subsistence became virtually improbable (see link on NAFTA). This led to greater number of crossings of illegal immigrants with the tacit approval of Mexican government.

This escalation of events (NAFTA, property rights, border crossings, tacit approval) gave the ability of Mexico to boost its economy by subversion and the corruption of the rule of law.

Furthermore, the oversimplification of issues such as illegal immigration, local or otherwise, is more the result of areas of gray than simply black and white. Especially since, as fellow blogger put it, "its little late to close the barn door after all the horses have been let out;" in other words, we are trying to solve a problem that we help create. In this case, we left the door wide open, and now expect to close it.

The other aspect of the illegal immigration debate is just playing on the minutia of the moment. Is it really practical to round up 12 to 40 million immigrants (depending on who is counting), legal or otherwise, and process them out of the country? In fact, the matter may require us to “round up” all Hispanic surnames. Is that realistic? Maybe or maybe not. Do we really want to take the chance? A chance that the rounding up of persons and citizenry will not turn into a perversion of paranoia. It has happened before (see the example of Japanese internment camps). And, is this not the same ethnic cleansing that led Europe to the persecution of Jews, Christians, and Muslims?

To return to point, Louden is correct that these illegal immigrants have broken the law, but is it realistic to ship all to be at the end of the line? And moreover, how can we be assured that we have them all? In addition, are there some laws that are immoral, impractical, and/or out of date (see Martin Luther King letter (link here) from the Birmingham jail to his fellow clergyman)? Nevertheless, there is the possibility of the undocumented worker would go deeper into the shadows, if those have their way in denying access to basic human care.

Simply, enforcing the laws on the books, prosecuting the executives, not the worker, may correct a portion of the problem. And, if one wants to use deny the social service and school angle, would this not create even more of a black market underground economy? Could it possibly create more crimes? In my opinion, the rule of law would be worse. “The two Americas,” of which John Edwards speaks of, may come to full realization. Therefore, increasing the disparity between socioeconomic classes.

UPDATED October 1, 2012

In the fall of 2008, the financial markets collapsed in the midst of president race between then candidate Barack Obama and then candidate John McCain (still Senator of Arizona). AIG (quick link discussion) and (here) and Lehman Brothers financial (here and here) were at critical financial junctures and United States Congress was being briefed on how dire the situation had become and immigration as issue was put on the back  burner.

The democratic and republican nominating conventions had just wrapped up and former governor Sarah Palin as vice presidential was an unknown quantity. The financial crisis became the cornerstone and the anchor of political folly for the opposition party -- the republicans. By mid-October of 2008, however, the quantification of former vice presidential Sarah Palin had come into focus with comedy parody of Tina Fey (video) and the presidential debates between the candidate revealed a pragmatic and cool leader in yet to be elected President Obama (video debates 1, 2, and 3).

After the elections, the financial crisis deepened and the auto industry was on a virtual chopping block. General Motors and Chrysler were hanging by a thread and the realization of how deep the financial crisis impact could not be foreseen for another two years. Despite the stimulus package aka American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that passed in early 2009, the financial crises deepened and multitudes of layoffs resulted in the millions of Americans unable to find employment for more than 99-weeks.  Many undocumented or illegal immigrant workers were unable to find work and in search of better markets places looking for cheaper labor or never crossing the border because of the economic crisis (here). Even, Vice President Joe Biden admitted to Central American leaders that the economic crisis had hurt immigration reform (here).

In fact, in the ensuing years according to the Immigration Custom Enforcment (ICE) agency statistics, under President Obama's administration deported more undocumented workers during its first two fiscal years of 2009 and 2010 combined (782,686) than the President Bush's administration during its last two fiscal years of 2007 and 2008 (660,281). This revelation leaves critics and supporters alike with inexorable conclusion that the present administration enforcement policies maybe sufficient to deter undocumented workers workers; and, that the solution to the immigration policies still need to be addressed.

Furthermore, the advocating of the DREAM Act, and recent failure for it to be passed legislation due to polarization of the parties has hindered the passage of comprehensive immigration reform. The one-time bipartisan bill has been lost in the minutia of political grand standing and the entrenchment of xenophobia and "law and order" types by the far-right fringe of the republican party. The law and order segment admittedly has validity, but it has been used often to obfuscate progress in resolving immigration policy. Yet, movement of the DREAM ACT principles has been transacted by the recent executive order and instruction of President Obama allowing nearly two million undocumented youth to temporarily work and go to college while their citizens status has been deferred.

Finally, as put forth by Louden's initial argument regarding immigration and racism are the obstacles that  has been used to shut down discussions by the political left, but it has also been used by the political right. The political right's excuse to buy into the race discussion has been that racism binds emotional realism to the debate therefore providing a solution has not been knowable and not possible. This, of course, let's the possible solution unresolved. By encasing the immigration issues in emotionalism the discussion get set aside. Candidate, such as Mitt Romney, who panders to the fringes come across as unreasonable and uncaring on immigrant issue.

Immigrant issues Mitt Romney's has impacted the campaign. The fringe right conservatism and fanaticism has left him and the campaign behind in the polling on average of 50 points or more.In the coming years, the latino and latina electorate will change the discussion, possibly by 2016 with Texas shifting to purple or blue: Meaning the high stake state will fluctuate between democratic and republican candidates for president and local and state political representatives representation will shift as well.

The change that is coming in future electorate will determine the future issues of this country. Immigration will be front and center. The 2012 election will determine whether the extremes of the left or right set the agenda in the following years or whether the sanity of pragmatism returns to the political reality.