Posts Tagged ‘markoff and hate’

Time to Declare “Silence=Death” on Immigrant Death & Detention as Obama Signals Right On Reform?

May 8, 2009

silence-death

This post was inspired by a spirited and sometimes overly visceral discussion on a listserv. More specifically, we were discussing recent statements by President Obama, who made “get tough” statements about the border and immigration reform during a press conference according to the right wing Washington Times reports,. “If the American people don’t feel like you can secure the borders,” Mr. Obama said at his press conference last week, “then it’s hard to strike a deal that would get people out of the shadows and on a pathway to citizenship who are already here, because the attitude of the average American is going to be, ‘Well, you’re just going to have hundreds of thousands of more coming in each year.’

Republicans say the shift is a sign that Mr. Obama, who during the campaign repeatedly called the issue a priority, is uncertain how to move forward.”

Such a debate and discussion would seem to fall along the same lines as the debate and discussion around immigration reform in 2006-except for 1 thing: we’re no longer in those halcyon days before 2006, days when all we had to worry urgently about were 3500-4000 people dying in the desert of crimmigration-filled U.S. migration policies first crafted by smiling Democrat Bill Clinton; we’ve reached a deadly stage where hating and dying and killing of immigrants are getting institutionalized on a national and unprecedented scale (anybody remember those who said “this will die down when we elect a Democrat”?)

Support for punitive policies has become dangerous and must be interrogated in open debate so that our communities can decide what is best by having all the facts; Better that than what too often passes for “immigration news”: the carefully crafted messages of powerful right wing and liberal groups with big budgets and lots of media power-PR, bloggers, pollsters, multimillion dollar campaigns and the like. In the media age, political legitimacy depends as much on media power as it does on moral power. You be the judge of which power prevails around immigration.

Some folks are starting to think about how to stop Obama’s effort to sell us the same old enforcement wine in the “hope”-filled new bottles of his political stardom. Will report back soon on this.

Though there is and will be a much-welcome, but hardly sufficient change of tone along with a softening on some enforcement, some forget that Obama has said absolutely nothing about altering or dismantling the massive multibillion dollar legal, bureaucratic and economic structures propped up in the name of “defending the homeland” from maids, gardeners and construction workers. The “tradeoff” will likely be supported by Obama, Dems, some big important and rich unions, Big Business (Ag,service,etc) DC advocates and the big foundations and other economic interests that support them as the main voices around “immigration reform”.

Whether these powerful liberal interests are willing to go the same dangerous tradeoff McCain-Kennedy route will ultimately depend on the ability of out-of-the-Beltway groups (or at least those intrepid enough to confront even the big foundations that fund them) and individuals to make it difficult to impossible to support any more punitive immigration policies without paying a high moral and political price. Making it widely known that you either support a moratorium on punitive policies ( as opposed to that embarrassing scarecrow that screams “they want to open up all the prisons) as part of a new CIR or you don’t. That wide Washingtonian gap has to be closed if there’s to be any shift in the deadly direction rooted in the immigrant=criminal premise underlying both right wing policies and the punitive components of CIR.

Of course, centrist Democrat Obama never promised any of this in his campaign. so, he is actually doing much of what he said he’d do, including dipping into the same civilizationally diseased pool of punitive policies-Obama’s support for the wall, his complete silence on the death and devastation in jails-and streets- and the inability to use his leadership pulpit to draw attention to the plight of those most mangled by the banker-led economic crisis and the hatred it’s unleashed, immigrants- yeah.

Obama should be the first to speak out against all the killings and hate towards immigrants, bu he doesn’t. just that would do alot. Yes, he’s got alot of other priorities. But silence in the face of so much devastation rained on migrants right now is, quite frankly an abomination for an openly declared Christian who used the images of Martin Luther King in his campaign. Just can’t imagine MLK either remaining silent before such officially and unofficially manifest injustice; Don’t see a suited up Jesus cutting deals in DC with extremist, even fascistic Republicans in the name of legalizing the 12 million.

Not the moral universe I think of when I used to say “Si se. puede” (don’t generally use left language commandeered for sloganeering of the corporate or political party kind…that’s why I encourage saying the more accurate “Si Se Pedo” instead); The question “What would Jesus do?” really does provide a good filter thru which to weigh the actions of the powerful on issues dealing with those Jesus called the “meek.” DC crowd, including Obama, spends more time talking about bailing out bankers, “the middle class” and other interests beside the poorest among us. That’s why DC groups sponsored repeated polls that told us that “moral arguments don’t work with American voters.”

The line between Realpolitik and What’s Right can be seen in the sands of silence around detention, enforcement, deportation and the like. In a climate in which hatred has been normalized and hate violence against migrants is perpetrated with impunity, failure to say or do anything about such issues makes us complicit.

As we used to say in the fight against homophobia and AIDS, silence=death.

Climate of Hate Means Immigrant Rights Organizations Should Commit to Excluding Punitive Policies in Any Reform Proposal

May 5, 2009

This post was inspired by another post by my friend, Alisa Valdez, who uses the MSM’s coverage of the Markoff “Craig’sList Killer” case to draw our attention to how twisted -and dangerous-the values of the media ecology we inhabit have become. Reading Alisa’s tight analysis alongside reports of that the racist killers of immigrant Luis Ramirez were declared innocent (and of course, the daily bread of anti-immigrant, anti-Latino hate found on radios, TV’s and websites everywhere), triggered concerns made even clearer during a recent visit to Europe to cover the UN conference on racism. More specifically, Alisa’s piece provided me with the spark to say something I’ve been mulling for while: the dangerous even murderous anti-migrant climate requires that immigrant advocates commit not to support any “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (CIR) proposal containing punitive immigration policies.

The piece below floats the seemingly uncontroversial idea of a petition asking immigrant rights orgs-and their leaders- to commit
to excluding, not supporting any and all punitive policies in any “comprehensive immigration reform.” Seems pretty obvious,
but the absence of such accountability allows the noxious policies-and the immigrant=criminal logic undergirding them- to pass
with the apparent support of that segment of the “immigrant rights movement” that can afford media flaks, PR spinsters, bloggers
and others allowing them to speak for the entire immigrant rights movement. Hopefully, this is non-controversial, but let’s put it to a test.

Neither aggressive, nor hostile, such a petition simply commits its signatories to excluding policies that, in such a radically hateful
climate, enable further hatred, terror and death in immigrant communities. how could anyone purporting to be a defender of immigrants
not agree to something so basic?

I encourage any comments, suggestions or disagreements those of you reading this might have. Gracias, R

Here’s the response to Alisa’s piece:

That a crazed murderer would be described with such fawning language while maids, gardeners and immigrants and other Latinos are described in the harshest, most hateful language speaks powerfully to how perverted the “values” of this decadent “civilization” have become. Reinforces a theory I have about how we’ve moved beyond the rather stale notion that legalization or increases in the Latino vote will do anything to diminish the rise in hate towards Latinos.

Between radical demographic shifts (young, rapidly growing Latino population, aging, diminishing white population), editorial rooms chock full of old- and young- still mostly white “editors” who normalize lethal logics and the companies that capitalize and profit from “news”programs, talk shows premised on promoting Darwinian racial ideologies, what we have is the possible institutionalization of perpetual race war targeting Latinos, especially immigrant Latinos, who are suffering the brunt of hatred, death and devastation.

In such a lethally charged climate, at such a decadent moment in the history of this country, we need to raise the cost of promoting or enabling the radical racial logic of the newsrooms described so cogently by Alisa. This is why I propose, for example, that we start eviscerating any trace of the racially charged immigrant=criminal logic in our own “community.” We can start addressing this by developing and circulating a petition or some document demanding that any “immigrant rights organization” commit itself to excluding any and all punitive immigration proposals they might advocate in the name of “legalizing the 12 million” or whatever spin people come up with in their efforts to legitimize the now deadly immorality known in legislative circles as a “tradeoff” (legalization in exchange for more punitive policy). We can then extend the commitment to the Hispanic Caucus and other members of Congress and move forward into the editorial rooms with greater force and unity of purpose.

As the possibility of “comprehensive immigration reform” rears its head again, we might want to consider the possibilty that, in allowing or even supporting punitive policies, we in the “immigrant rights movement” are unconsciously accepting the logic of criminality by allowing or supporting laws premised on now extremely lethal notions of immigrant criminality manufactured in hate groups, “think tanks” and the news rooms Alisa aptly describes. Make no mistake, in times when hating immigrants is proven to yield daily profits for news organizations and their advertisers, times when you can kill an immigrant and go scott free (or even hailed as heroes as in the gross distortion that is the Compean case), “tradeoffs” mean we are willing to accept logic that kills, the same logic of the racists disguised as editors use. I also think that the institutions-news orgs, hate groups, political parties, including Democrats- invested and investing in this radical, deadly turn deserve the same treatment we used to give those who enabled the slaughter of innocents in El Salvador: pouring colored red liquid symbolizing the blood of the dead and maimed on their offices-or even their suits and dresses. Things, have, I believe, reached that point of urgency-but the “news” will not report it or, if they do, they’ll do so in the most banal terms possible. Such are the rotten fruits of decadent “civilization.”

Thanks again for your work on this, Alisa. Good writing should spark discussion and debate and you succeeded.

Best,

R