I was listening to NPR make the claim that states were “taking the lead” on immigration “reform,” noting that in Alabama, the law that criminalizes the children of one particular group has led to a noticeable decrease in the number of that particular group. NPR—which the right accuses of being “liberal”—seems to find this laudable. Low-level racism always seems to bring together the various political factions (just ask Progressive Number One Thom Hartmann). The fact is that laws that target children like Alabama’s does has a fatal flaw that apparently even “liberal” NPR finds acceptable: Laws that everyone knows is meant to discomfit one group and doesn’t intend to require all to be treated in the same manner is a violation of civil rights. The only way it could not be is if every child is required to show their “papers.” Alabama school officials will not do this, because they know many white and black children—especially from the poorer neighborhoods—may not have the birth certificates or social security numbers.
Another irony, as I’ve pointed out before, is that as many as one-in-nine Asian residents are illegal; Seattle’s “Chinatown”—practically an independent entity within the city—probably has hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal immigrants. But will NPR do a story about why the Asian illegal immigrant passes unnoticed? No, because it agrees with Alabama’s cynical use of Latino immigrants as a race-baiting tool for political purposes, just as Southern politicians did in the 1940s and 1950s to feed the paranoia of white voters in the face of the burgeoning civil rights movement.
Some economists have had the courage to cite the “lump of labor fallacy,” which claims that there is a fixed amount of work to be done, and thus only a certain amount of workers. This argument was used when automation threatened to “take” jobs; now, of course, it is Latinos who are “taking” jobs. The economists point out that the “fallacy” comes in when the argument that if we kick-out all the illegals, these jobs will be filled by the unemployed natives. But the reality is that illegal aliens would not be here in the first place if those jobs had been filled in first place, and there is no reason to believe that they will be if they leave. Economists have argued that history has demonstrated that a growing employed labor pool can expand the size of the economy, leading to job creation. Reducing the number of people who are employed would only decrease economic activity—and reduce the demand for labor. All Alabama (and other states like it) have done is get rid of a flexible, productive labor force, and replaced it with decreased economic activity. All for the sake of racial politics.
There are other ways in which society can “frame” an issue in a way that inspires hate for one group and allows stereotype get in the way of facts. A few months ago there was a “low-rider” convention in a parking lot in Kent. A newspaper story reported that “Mexican” music was playing. An argument started and shooting followed; no one was killed, but a handful were injured. A couple days later, the Seattle Times was reporting that South King County was going to receive an infusion of funds to fight Latino gangs. Confirmation of a stereotype, right? A week ago, it was reported that six males had been arrested in connection with the shootings; four of them were white.
I’ve written many times, both from experience and observation, that the sum of the media, political and law enforcement propaganda is to stigmatize an entire group based solely on their “color,” and rationalize any and all prejudice, and make a mock of civil rights. People are treated like or referred to as pests and vermin, and moved around like cattle. The Seattle Times, as I’ve mentioned before, frequently puts stories on the front page designed to inflame anti-Latino bigotry. What is the cost of this? Last week, the Times, for some reason, felt compelled to print a few paragraphs on page B3 about an “alleged” hate crime against a Latino of “unknown” legal status. Behind a restaurant in Kent, a white man and a Latino who was an employee were in the rear of the building drinking, when an argument erupted after the white man started with the racial slurs. The intoxicated white man was told to leave the premises, whereupon “he confronted the Latino man and accused him of being ‘an illegal immigrant.’ He then punched “the (victim) repeatedly in the face until he fell to the ground, then straddling the man and slamming his head into some rocks, the (charging) papers say.” The white man continued should slurs, upon the which the Latino man got up and advanced toward him; the white man then swung a bicycle lock suspended on a chain at him, striking him on the head.
The perpetrator then “repeatedly asked the victim for his ‘papers,’ leading the investigating detective to believe that “the alleged victim's race and citizenship status was a factor.” The victim “suffered significant facial injuries, including a fractured orbital bone.” The reporter saw fit to note, of course, that the charging papers did not indicate the victims legal status, which naturally leading some people on the online comment section to focus on that issue, as if the perpetrator was “justified” somehow in what he had done.
Frankly, knowing the Times usual modus operandi, I don’t know why they even bothered, because it was placed where people were unlikely to notice it, and ask the question of what culpability does the media have in inciting this kind of behavior to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment