US Government

Originally posted on Citizen Orange.

I admire people that work to build unity where there is division.  Building unity leads humanity in the direction of ideals.  Building consensus is admirable, but compromising with hate is not.

In her Washington Post op-ed, "The Right Road to America?", Yale Law Professor Amy Chua compromises with hate.  In an attempt to forge a middle ground between tolerance and toughness, she makes deals with the devil.  The net result is an argument that rests on nativism. 

Chua makes the fallacious argument that, within nations, "pluralism and diversity" leads to "violence and instability".  Reading her op-ed, I couldn't help but be reminded of the lunatic mission statement of Frosty Wooldridge's website (Another front for NumbersUSA):

Our English language is under assault and our schools
are drowning in ethnic violence, rapes, drugs and gang warfare. In
California, Texas, Florida and Arizona, our hospitals suffer bankruptcies
from non-paid services for 350,000 annual 'anchor babies'. Ten million
illegal immigrants displace jobs from America's working poor and depress
wages for many others. Leprosy, tuberculosis, Chagas Disease, hepatitis
and other diseases 'pour' into our country within the bodies of illegal
immigrants who avoid health screening before coming on board the United
States. Even worse, clashing cultures with religions that celebrate
'female genital mutilation' and subjugation of women are growing in
enclaves around our country. As Lincoln said, "A house divided against
itself can not stand." [...]

Our leaders are outsourcing and offshoring our
jobs to Third World countries while they import the Third World into our
country. America's middle class is being driven into the unemployment
lines. Our schools are becoming dysfunctional towers of Babel with over
140 languages. We can not stay afloat with this kind of linguistic chaos.
Yes, we have compassion for immigrants, but it's our country and our
children. Their leaders need to take care of them in their countries.
Unfortunately, Congress and leadership of this nation refuse to step
below the water line to see how fast we are sinking. We're $6.8 trillion
in debt. There were 20 different languages on the California recall
ballot. Whose country is this anyway?

- Frosty Wooldridge

Chua is certainly more logical and less extreme in her nativism than Wooldridge is.  But the premise of their arguments is the same.  Migrants subvert the U.S.'s national identity.

An Appeal to the Migratory

"Racism", "Pluralism", and "National Identity", are all very complicated terms that Chua plays with in her op-ed.  It would take a pages to define each of them and their interactions with migrants, and a whole books to discuss how they're interrelated.  What's worse, I've added another term to the mix: "Nativism".   Chua is smart.  She is not a political scientist or a philosopher.  Rather than weave her own argument, she draws on the work of Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, and his book, Who Are We: The Challenges to America's National Identity.  I'm not going to delve into a critique of Huntington's book in this post.  Alan Wolfe does a good job in Foreign Affairs for those that are interested.

Either way, the most important thing to remember about all of these terms, is that they have systemic connotations.  That means that it doesn't matter what you're background, views, or actions are as an individual, it says nothing about your systemic views.  People of color can be racist.  Women can be sexist.  Migrants can be nativist.  The cracks in Chua's epistemology start to show when she uses her individual experience to make systemic arguments.   Readers should raise their eyebrows when she uses her parents to justify her support for Huntington.

Are we, as the Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington warns,
in danger of losing our core values and devolving "into a loose
confederation of ethnic, racial, cultural, and political groups, with
little or nothing in common apart from their location in the territory
of what had been the United States of America"?

My parents arrived in the United States in 1961, so poor that they
couldn't afford heat their first winter. I grew up speaking only
Chinese at home (for every English word accidentally uttered, my sister
and I got one whack of the chopsticks). Today, my father is a professor
at Berkeley, and I'm a professor at Yale Law School. As the daughter of
immigrants, a grateful beneficiary of America's tolerance and
opportunity, I could not be more pro-immigrant.

Criminalizing Immigrants Makes Them Easier to Deport

New America Media, Commentary, Paromita Shah, Posted: Aug 10, 2007

Editor’s Note: The current spate of immigration raids and harsh ordinances did not come out of the blue but is the fruition of the careful build-up of an immigration law enforcement infrastructure for over a decade. Paromita Shah is associate director of the National Immigration Project (NIP) of the National Lawyers Guild. NIP is a member of Detention Watch Network, a national coalition working to reform the U.S. immigration detention system. IMMIGRATION MATTERS regularly features the views of the nation's leading immigrant rights advocates.

Immigration reform is dead – at least for the time being – but more raids, detentions and deportations continue.

But we also face a new emerging “deportation” strategy – one from local and state governments that seek to pass laws that essentially “deport” immigrants from the towns and the states in which they live.

The concept is simple: pass laws that make the lives of immigrants so miserable that they will be forced to leave, turning them into internal deportees in the United States.

According to the Washington Post, state and local governments have filed over 1,000 such bills. While most empower local police to act as immigration agents, a significant number obstruct immigrants' ability to obtain jobs, use necessary medical services, send children to public schools, find housing, get driver's licenses and receive many other government services. For example, the notorious Hazelton town ordinance required tenants obtain an occupancy permit from the city before renting a unit. One had to prove lawful residence or citizenship to get the permit. The town imposed hefty fines, $1,000, for violation of the ordinance.

US to probe death of immigration detainee
Sister says police refused medicine for Milford man

By Milton J. Valencia, Globe Staff | August 9, 2007

A Brazilian national arrested Tuesday afternoon on a deportation warrant in Rhode Island died shortly after he was taken into federal custody, outraging family members who said authorities ignored their warnings that he had epilepsy and needed to take his medication daily.

Edmar Alves Araujo, 34, of Milford, called his sister to say he had been detained by local police after a traffic stop. Irene Araujo said she immediately brought his medication, Gardenal, to Woonsocket police headquarters, where he was being held, only to be turned away by officers who refused to accept it.

"I told them he needed the medication, and I told them he had seizure problems," Irene Araujo said yesterday. "He can't skip a day without medication."

According to Irene Araujo's account, authorities told her that if her brother had a medical condition, he could inform them himself. She said that officers then ignored her repeated pleas that it was urgent.

"They didn't give me a chance to show them or nothing," she said. "They didn't say anything."

A spokeswoman for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency confirmed yesterday that Edmar Araujo died Tuesday while in federal custody. But she declined to comment on the family's assertion that authorities were warned of Araujo's epilepsy and his need for Gardenal, a phenobarbital-based drug that helps control seizures in epileptics.

Posted on Campaign to End the Death Penalty

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor
Published: 28 December 2006

The Bush administration welcomed the confirmation of the death penalty against Saddam Hussein, reopening the divide with the European Union and the United Nations, which are opposed to execution.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said Saddam should not be hanged for crimes against humanity because his trial had been flawed and was marred by political interference by the Iraqi government.

A spokeswoman for Amnesty said: "We are against the death penalty as a matter of principle but particularly in this case because it comes after a flawed trial."

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said: "Imposing the death penalty, indefensible in any case, is especially wrong after such unfair proceedings. That a judicial decision was first announced by Iraq's National Security Adviser underlines the political interference that marred Saddam Hussein's trial."

Iraq's US-appointed interim government reinstated the death penalty in August 2004, causing friction with its coalition partner, Britain. The former top British representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the UK would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

A Foreign Office spokesman said yesterday that while the execution of Saddam was "a matter for the Iraqis", Britain remained opposed to the death penalty, and had made representations to the government on that score.

It knows no party boundaries.
It is not caused by alcoholism.
That is all.
Go back to FOX News.