Immigration reform held hostage by unrelated and opportunistic forces

Recalling the night of the acquittal of four white Los Angeles police officers accused of beating black motorist Rodney King, I wondered why the verdict came as a shock to most people—even Pres. George H.W. Bush expressed surprise that jurors seemingly ignored the “incontrovertible” evidence of the video of the beating. However, it was a predictable verdict to anyone who was paying attention; after all, the trial had been moved to Simi Valley, which just happened to be home for many retired police officers, family and sympathizers. Naturally, any jurors selected from this pool could be expected to be overly “open-minded” as to the innocence of the officers. However, I while I could understand the anger at the verdict, I never could understand the rampaging and destroying of one’s own neighborhood; more of an impression might have been made had protestors taken to the streets during the day and shut down the city for a week. 

What was even less understood was the “anger” on display in response to the King verdict elsewhere—say, Seattle, which for a city its size has a relatively small black and Latino population; although Seattle has a reputation as a “progressive” city, my impression is that narcissism is a more common feature. Anyways, I worked a swing shift that day, and when I arrived home after midnight I turned on the television and what did I see? A breathless local television reporter chasing down mobs of mostly white “kids” busily breaking windows and turning over newspaper stands; many more just stood around laughing at the scene and having a wild time spectating. Were they “outraged” too by the verdict? Some of them were doubtless “disturbed” by its unexpectedness, but otherwise they had no stake in it. As youths are wont to do, they were just mimicking what they saw earlier in the day on the streets of LA. As a change of pace. 

The same interpretation can be applied to what happened in Seattle this past May Day. The first of May once passed without incident, until recent years when in the wake of anti-Latino immigrant backlash that was largely politically-driven and served as a convenient rationalization to express one’s discriminatory predilections, some grassroots organizations managed to persuade thousands of Latino residents to march downtown in a show of force in the cause of immigration reform; it probably shocked some people in Seattle that there were so many—even when they are encountered on the street they are invisible, or not worth noting. May 1 in Spanish is Cinco de Mayo, and it is in commemoration of the victory of Mexican rebels over the French colonialists and their wealthy landholding sponsors at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. The day is widely held as a “festive” holiday in Mexico and other areas with large Mexican communities. 

May Day is also commemorated in Europe as a version of Labor Day; in the U.S., the day has no real meaning save that it was chosen by some socialist and labor organizations to commemorate the Haymarket Riot, which actually occurred a few days later. In order to avoid the “taint” of “socialism,” Labor Day in the U.S. was moved to September. But other than that, the rationalization for white people to suddenly decided to piggyback on a very real concern of Latinos, and riot in the streets and then go back to their capitalist day jobs after ruining the original intent and giving it a black eye—especially to racists and xenophobes who only see their stereotypes “confirmed”—is very slim indeed. 

It is in this light, then, that we should see how Congresspersons who have expressed strong opposition to immigration reform have deliberately clouded the issue. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has been front-and-center on the campaign of misinformation and misapplication, attempting to lump together those people working for low wages in industrial parks and farm fields—sometimes even with their children—with that rare incidence of foreign-born immigrants, usually highly educated, but with fanatical religious or political ideologies. Latinos have far greater reason to view the atmosphere of hate with trepidation, but how many of those (estimated) 9 million illegal immigrants of Hispanic heritage have committed such acts? Even a confirmed Latino hater like Michelle Malkin (whose face is frozen in a perpetual scowl from spewing a constant stream of right-wing hate) for whom like many any crime committed by a Latino indicts all, would be hard-pressed to even name one specific example. 

As fate may have it, I happened to catch a rerun of Grassley’s opening remarks in regard to the Senate Gang of Eight’s initial crafting of an immigration reform bill, on C-Span. An alternately bemused and exasperated Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano patiently listened to his rambling statement, of which he could have saved a lot time by simply boiling down his agenda to its lowest common denominator: Keep the “others” out. Grassley was speaking for paranoid white bigots eager to release pent-up frustration at a changing world (no greater personified than by Barack Obama), whose  idea of immigration “reform” only insures that the “problem” of  illegal immigration will get worse. Ryan Campell, posting on the Huffington Post, pointed out that the fact is that Grassley’s true agenda in killing immigration reform due to a barely disguised racism and xenophobia: 

“Being anti-immigrant is nothing new for this Iowa Senator: he voted to cut funds from sanctuary cities; voted no on comprehensive immigration reform; voted yes on declaring English as the official language of the U.S.; voted yes on a border fence; voted no on establishing Guest Worker programs; voted no on giving guest workers a pathway towards citizenship; is rated 100 percent by the U.S. Border Control for a sealed-border stance; is rated A by Americans for Legal Immigration for being strongly against legal status for undocumented immigrants, and this is just a short list of his many anti-immigrant stances. While even Paul Ryan, vice presidential nominee for Mr. "Self-Deportation," has come out for immigration, Grassley is staying the course.” 

Campell also noted that at a recent judiciary committee hearing, Grassley invited an assortment of far-right organizations and individuals accused of having white supremacist agendas. Campbell calls him a “political coward” who after the gun background check debacle needs to find a way to “refurbish” his image, and what better way than to appeal to his core constituency’s bigotry. Whatever his racial beliefs his current stand is less ideological and “moral” than opportunistic and personal.

The stance on immigration reform by Sen. Chuck Grassley and other anti-immigrant fanatics makes no sense because they don’t address the core problem with the current immigration system: It makes too easy for some groups to enter the country legally—and too difficult for other groups.

Grassley prefers the usual Republican do-nothing strategy, claiming that there were still 92 Senators (most of them Republicans) who needed to be heard to “improve” the immigration reform bill. What exactly does Grassley think should be done to “improve” the bill? He wants to “protect” the “sovereignty” of this country by keeping out as many dark-skinned people out as possible; Grassley is no hypocrite—he only represents “white America.” Thus he opposes a “legalization” strategy that only requires the “submission of both a southern border security and fencing strategy.”  He goes on to say that it is up to people like himself to decide what border fencing is sufficiently “substantial” before any legalization process is contemplated, not the Homeland Security department; what exactly would qualify as “sufficient” is not precisely detailed, but  Grassley has suggested that a fence that prevents 90 percent of border crossing is necessary to even contemplate immigration reform. He underlines this stance by opposing any “expedited” path to legalization for agricultural workers and Dream Act children.

Grassley also spoke at length about the H1-B work visa program, but his principle concern here was not that the taking of high-paying tech jobs from qualified Americans, but that “terrorists” might be “inadvertently” might slip through. To this point, he complained that “I’m concerned that the bill provides unfettered and unchecked authority to you and your department and your successors (well, pardon me, but isn’t that the issue with the so-called Patriot Act—which gives “unfettered and unchecked” authority to Homeland Security to deal with the Grassley’s various complaints?). We’ve got a situation where Congress has to legislate more and delegate less (maybe that’s why the bill needs language to avoid being “fettered” by obstructionist Republicans).

Grassley denies that he is using the recent terrorist act in Boston to stop talk of immigration reform; he only wants to “slow” it down—maybe for years, or indefinitely, at least until 2016 when the possibility of an obstructionist Republican president is in office (remember Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” plan). Grassley mentions a “potential terrorist attack on the U.S.-Canadian railroad”—again falsely implying that there is any connection between this and the Latino immigration issue; Latino immigrant know what this country is “all about,” they are coming here for work and not plotting acts of terrorism.  Yet Grassley goes on to make a ludicrous comparison between the 9/11 hijackers who came here for the specific purpose of committing a terrorist act, and the other 12 (alleged) million illegal immigrants. Was Timothy McVeigh amongst that group? Or the “native” white supremacists who we now know assisted him in carrying out his act? How did he manage to slip detection?

Grassley also assails the “weakening” of asylum laws. I agree that there is a problem with current law; it is too easy to grant Chinese and Southeast Asian illegal immigrants refugee status, while it is almost impossible for people from Latin America to claim similar status legally, even when they are victims of the U.S.-sponsored “war on drugs” and of oppressive right-wing regimes that are our “friends.”

Laughably—or rather, despicably—Grassley suggested that immigration reform needed to take into account the opinion of ICE agents and law enforcement, presumably Sheriff Joe Arpaio and others of his ilk, who are nothing more than racists who enjoy hunting “Mexicans” as if they are on safari. 

Grassley seemed to take personally a statement by Sen. Chuck Schumer, who suggested that some lawmakers wanted to use the recent tragedies at Sandy Hook (committed by a nice white America boy) and Boston to delay immigration reform indefinitely. But fellow Republicans Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also shot down his assertions, issuing a joint statement asserting that their reform bill would enhance national security:

In the wake of this week’s terrorist attack in Boston, some have already suggested that the circumstances of this terrible tragedy are justification for delaying or stopping entirely the effort for comprehensive immigration reform. In fact the opposite is true: Immigration reform will strengthen our nation’s security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and who has left -- a basic function of government that our broken immigration system is incapable of accomplishing today. The status quo is unacceptable. We have 11 million people living in the shadows, which leaves this nation vulnerable to a myriad of threats. That is all the more reason why comprehensive immigration reform is so essential. By modernizing our system of legal immigration, identifying and conducting background checks on people here illegally, and finally securing our border, we will make America more secure.

Of course, we shouldn’t expect much illumination on reality from the media, at least not The Seattle Times. The paper recently ran a two-part story regarding H1-b visas; the first part was written by two Asian reporters, who muffled the argument that jobless “native” high-tech workers could not find jobs because Microsoft and other employers of that ilk seemed to prefer foreign workers (probably because they are not entitled to pension plans and other benefits). Part two, written by an African-American reporter from who I have perceived insensitivity regarding issues of concern to Latinos, seemed to be overly sympathetic to spouses of H1-B visa holders who have not been granted  work visas, and praises the new immigration bill under consideration for granting such work permits—also generally in high-tech or professional jobs.

This has been in sharp contrast to reporting on issues in which Latinos have a “prominent” role, which tend to focus on any aspect that bring disparagement upon them; it is interesting to note that while the Latino population in the U.S. represents 17 percent of the total population, the Times—which claims to have a “diversified” newsroom—does not employ a single Latino reporter, or anyone else who speaks their “language.” This clearly contributes to the culture of stereotyping and prejudice from the Times.

There is of course the lack of attention paid to illegal immigration from Asia by the Times—most of which is not from the overstaying of visas, but illegal entry. While raids on Yakima farm fields by ICE is noted, the fact that there are thousands of illegal aliens from Asia in the International District—practically an autonomous city within a city—right under the nose of the immigration detention center in Seattle goes unnoticed and unreported, no doubt for political reasons. Illegal immigrants from Asia—when caught—are, as mentioned before, given either refugee status, or are simply released into the population. Part of this is because Asians are more acceptable alternative to “Mexicans,” and but more likely because the Latino-fixated ICE can’t simply toss them over a border—you have provide them with plane fare back to their home countries. There are an estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants from Asia in this country; it would probably cost at least $20 billion to process and deport them all. The hypocrisy of this is apparent when it is pointed out that it is almost impossible for anyone from Latin America to achieve asylum status—even those victimized by the U.S.—funded and armed “war on drugs” and oppressed by right-wing regimes that are “friendly” to the U.S.

I point this out not because I am “anti-Asian,” but because I am disgusted by the vast disparity on how different groups are treated in this country. This country has had a long and complex relationship with Latin America—not with Asia. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declare that the New and Old Worlds’ were two completely different entities, and would regard  any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. Furthermore, the U.S. had no formal quota system for Latin American immigration until 1965, and as the various repatriation pogroms instituted by the state and federal government showed an unsaid acceptance of cross-border travel to fill labor needs in the U.S.—and an equal disregard for law in the ”reparation” of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent during times of economic distress; it is estimated that anywhere from 300,000 to 1.2 million American citizens were systematically rounded-up and  “dumped” across the Mexican border during the 1930s, first initiated by Pres. Herbert Hoover in response to claims that the “Mexicans” were “stealing” jobs from “real” Americans; this policy was carried out without any serious attempt to adjudicate their legal status. 

The Mexican “repatriation” was unprecedented in U.S. history in its injustice, and far worse than the Japanese internet, which affected far fewer people and did not force the victims to leave the country; the Japanese even received an “apology” and reparations—while the “Mexicans” have only received scorn.  

In regard to the H1-B visa program, most people are under the impression that they are only issued for high-tech, high-skilled jobs. This is false; the H1-B visa program is for any job description for which an employer has a professed need for that cannot be filled by the “native” labor force. Thus the fact that only one percent of all such visas are given to “Mexican” seasonal laborers goes a long way to explaining what is really wrong with this country’s immigration policy—which essentially leaves employers and laborers in “low-tech” occupations few alternatives.

I have severe doubts that a comprehensive immigration law will ever be passed that addresses the core problems with our current immigration policy that actually invites illegal immigration by ignoring reality. In the meantime, all that there is to do is to become depressed by the reality of political stalemate.