I recently came out in support of any government proposal that provides amnesty to the millions of undocumented laborers who would be considered criminals under current statutes — no strings attached. The comments I received ranged from predictable to illuminating.
By “no strings attached”, I mean that such a proposal would be wholly separate from any legislation meant to reform the current immigration system. That is something for politicians to debate and compromise on. As far as I’m concerned, no one who is truly conscious of human rights should be willing to compromise over the amnesty issue. For in its purest essence, bigotry is the denial of human rights based on an individual’s natural condition: be it because he is born black, brown, yellow, or red; born homosexual; or born, as discussed here, into poverty outside of the United States of America.
Forget briefly that the U.S. has for its entire history had quite the record when it comes to the institutionalized exploitation of her minority groups — particularly the black, brown, yellow, and red. If it applies to you as it does to me, this will require looking beyond the privileges bestowed upon you for having either by choice or force assimilated fully into white society. Now it should be safe to continue…
The most predictable response I received was the following question: “As a self-described non-racist myself, do you not find it a tad unfair to say denying amnesty to illegal immigrants is bigoted, xenophobic, and racist?”
I wouldn’t have published the post if I had thought it “a tad unfair” in the same way that I find the disproportionately high number of blacks in America’s prisons “a tad unfair” or the disproportionately high number of whites in Congress “a tad unfair”. Just because a white person does not consider the racial factors of her country’s policies does not make her a non-racist. In fact, I would suggest that she is more likely to be a racist. The person offering up this “fairness” question should consider who would bear the brunt of our law enforcement behemoth’s so-called “enforcement”. It certainly would not be those of Northern and Western European descent.
The informed non-racist should have sensed the implication that I believe the current system is broken beyond repair-by-minute-tinkering; it is screaming to be revolutionized in favor of promoting legal immigration — inclusion over exclusion. Slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation all thrived under their respective American legal systems, and it took unprecedented bloodshed (and to a lesser extent, moral reflection) to fix these broken systems.
Furthermore, to write my position off as simply “left wing” is also extremely ill-informed and is an exemplar of political immaturity. I’d be shocked if you showed me five prominent liberal blogs where my position is shared. The “prominent” blogs I’m thinking of are too concerned with maintaining a positive image among politicians. They will publish little that would risk seriously offending latent white racists. Any Democrat hoping to run for President would quickly distance himself from any corners of the Internet that would alienate the rural cracker vote, and it’s one of the reasons that I despise all but a very small number of pols.
What’s the use in getting behind someone who sold their soul to a demon named Pragmatism? You just know they’ll have to go to hell and back to retrieve it. Might require them to cancel some Oval Office meetings with big money donors. Can’t have that, can we?
Fortunately, what we can have is a real discussion. If you believe my position is radical, tell me why. Tell me why you feel an anti-amnesty position is not racist, bigoted, and xenophobic. Maybe you feel that deportation of entire families is compassionate and fair. That’s kind of what this whole pre-echo chamber blogging thing used to be about.
But don’t whine to me about how “unfair” I’m being with “sweeping generalizations”. I’m somehow unmoved by bigots crying bigotry.