Illegal Immigration as a License for Immoral Acts

First, Happy (belated) Thanksgiving, everyone! I hope the holidays have treated you and yours well, and that your investments are no more than 40% down for the year.

I've been meaning to write a blog post all week about a story I read in the AJC (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) on Monday. It seems a Mexican national (let's call him "Jose," because I don't remember, don't feel like looking it up, and because the details are irrelevant here) overstayed his visa to the United States about ten years ago and, presumably under false documents, obtained a job as a cook at a restaurant in the Atlanta area, where he has worked continuously. He eventually married, had a child, and bought a house. Because his daughter was a U.S. citizen, having been born in the U.S., the house was titled in her name. He and his family lived there until earlier this year, when they decided to sell the house and move into a bigger one. A neighbor (let's call her "Carol") whose child played with Jose's child, noticed the for-sale sign and inquired. They subsequently began to negotiate over the sale. The negotiation turned into a lease-first and then buy deal, but then ultimately broke down (presumably over essential terms like, for example, price). The woman and her daughter had, however, already moved into the house. Part of the reason the negotiations broke down was because the woman thought she was getting 3 months of free rent. Jose disagreed.

Jose demanded she leave the property. Apparently, during the negotiations over the sale of the house, Carol learned about Jose's immigration status (probably because the house was titled in Jose's young daughter's name). As Jose began to demand that she leave the property, and with the deal apparently dead, Carol began to "out" Jose. She called immigration and naturalization services. She called the police. She wrote letters to the media. She called his employer and, eventually, got Jose fired. She even wrote her Congressman. Her justification for taking this action was, well, he's in the country illegally. He's a "criminal." She was doing her duty.

What are the lessons to be gleaned from this true patriot's activities? Let's see:

Lesson One: Use any fact at your disposal to extort a business deal to your advantage.

Lesson Two: If someone is doing something illegal or is an illegal immigrant, he has no rights and you can take immoral actions that you would not otherwise against a person.

Lesson Three: The sins of the father carry to the sins of the child. You owe no moral duty to a child of an illegal immigrant. You also owe no special duty to children.

This story exposes an extra and more hideous wrinkle to the immigration debate than the hypocrisy inherent in our immigration system (i.e., let's berate and rail against the people who are building most of the roads, houses, and buildings in this country). The dangers of excessive nationalism and focus on status are on full display: one person has no rights because of his status. Jose has no right to anything in this country because of his illegal status. He is deprived of value as a human being. Carol feels she can do anything to him, because he is not a person-- or, not fully a person. This sort of sentiment is much more frightening to me than the hypocrisy, because it is the antecedent to truly destructive and vile behavior. Once a person is able to convince himself or herself that someone else is not a person (via status), the worst kind of atrocities are possible. That's how blacks were treated so cruelly in America, Jews in, really, most of history... there are many more examples.

I'm not saying that we are on the verge of genocide here in America. But this kind of feeling that because of a person's status, you have the license to do any horrible thing you want and can treat him/her as anything less than a human being worthy of respect as such is a dangerous, self-deluding thing. There are always moral duties one owes others-- regardless of what they look like or even if they've committed a crime.

Carol lost her moral focus! Likely, Carol found in Jose's immigration status an excuse for being an unscrupulous negotiator and then, when rejected, wrapped herself around the moral authority of Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, and Lou Dobbs (undoubtedly, mentally grouping herself among said commentator's "heroes" of immigration) and took up the cause of illegal immigration personally against Jose. No matter her justification, she shows herself as mean and spiteful.

The resolution of the house deal, by the way, was that Jose eventually had to evict Carol. Carol had stayed in the house for 9 months and never paid any rent. Because I guess you can use an illegal immigrant's property as you like whenever you want and not pay for it. Because, like, they shouldn't even be here.

It's a Civil Rights Thing

Proposition 8 passed in California, and it bothers me. It often seems that with many legal issues, as goes California, so goes the rest of the country. I wonder why more people can’t see this issue for what it is, a civil rights issue.

In particular, why can’t more people of color – Latinos and blacks voted overwhelmingly in favor of Proposition 8 – see this as a civil rights issue? Many members of these minority groups seem perfectly willing to accept the benefits provided them by the hard work and sacrifices of the Civil Rights Movement but unwilling to extend those benefits to others who are similarly oppressed.

Me? I say it’s just bigotry. Because, in the purest sense of the term, recognizing the equal right of people in a same sex relationship to marry is a CIVIL rights issue.

The newspapers and news websites tell us that it was religion that swayed slightly more than 50% of Latino voters and 70% of African-American voters in California. Many African-American ministers and Catholic priests with Latino congregations pushed Proposition 8 from the pulpit.

But who cares what your religious views are? This is not a religious issue. No one is asking for the right to get married in your church by your minister, priest, rabbi, or imam. The civil act of marriage does not require the blessing of any such person. It requires only the imprimatur of the state. Same sex couples simply want to be granted the same CIVIL RIGHT to inheritance. The same CIVIL RIGHT to joint ownership of property. The same CIVIL RIGHT to marital tax treatment. The same CIVIL RIGHT to healthcare and retirement benefits for their partners and children. They’re not asking for God’s blessing; they’re asking for the government’s.

And the government should give it. It’s called “equal protection,” and it’s guaranteed by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Be bigoted in your religious practices if you want, but the government should not practice bigotry when recognizing and protecting the rights of its citizens. (And, incidentally, thanks to the Second Amendment, you’re perfectly free to practice your bigoted religion.)

And people just need to get over the idea that granting people who live a lifestyle that is distasteful to them the same rights somehow cheapens their rights. There are lots of things that are morally offensive to various people but are nonetheless sanctioned by the government. Simply because someone finds an act morally offensive doesn’t mean that act should lack constitutional protection. Mores can change over time and should not interfere with the recognition and protection of constitutional rights.

In the earlier years of this country, many people (if not most people) found it morally reprehensible for people of different races, particularly blacks and whites, to intermarry. Until the mid-Fifties, miscegenation was illegal in most states. At the marriage license office, interracial couples needed not apply. Then, in 1967, came Loving v. Virginia, the case in which the Supreme Court declared that – regardless of public opinion about the morality of such unions – marriages between people of different races was constitutionally protected by the 14th Amendment. So, you may not approve of such unions; you may even find them distasteful; but they’re legal.

Personally, I don’t approve of crackheads having babies (and find it morally reprehensible for someone to expose a fetus to crack cocaine), but when one does, she has the same CIVIL RIGHT to custody of her child that I have of mine. I certainly wouldn’t deny her the right to have her parental rights terminated only after notice, an opportunity to be heard, and proof of her unfitness. It doesn’t cheapen my parental rights in the least to grant those rights to people I feel engage in reprehensible conduct. In fact, it strengthens my rights. We shouldn’t head down the slippery slope of denying some people – but not all people – access to their constitutional rights.

The issue is no different for people in same sex relationships who want their right to marriage recognized and protected.

It is both the wonderful and sometimes frightening reality in this country that you are free to think whatever you want; you are free to say just about anything you want; and you are free to practice your religion as you please. As a result, you are free to think that it is morally wrong for people of the same sex to marry; you are free to say that you think it’s morally wrong; and your church is free to deny religious rites to persons of the same sex.

None of us, however, is free to deny other citizens equal protection of the law. If you, in your happy heterosexual home, are entitled to the governmental extension of marital rights, so are all the people in same sex relationships. It is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.

Veteran's Day Remembrances

Today is Veteran’s Day.

As of the date of the last census, there were 26,403,703* veterans in the U.S. Even more men and women have served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world since those numbers were compiled.

Today is a day following close on the heels of the day when each of us is called upon to exercise our ultimate right and privilege as citizens.

It is a day to remember those millions who have fought throughout the history of our nation to protect that right.

It is a day to thank those who currently serve in our nation’s military for their willingness to serve.

It is a day to hug those who are here at home with us, having returned safely from service.

It is a day to remember those millions over the years who made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives.

It is a day to encourage the families of the approximately 92,000 service members who are no longer with us because they are missing in action or unaccounted for.

It is a day to demand that our government offer support, medical treatment, and recovery services to the approximately 7.7 million service members who are injured or permanently disabled following their service.

It is a day to insist that the approximately 1.5 million veterans living in poverty and the approximately 200,000 veterans who are homeless not be forgotten and be given the opportunity for assistance, education, and support.

For we know that freedom is not free.

And we know that it is incumbent upon each of us who do not personally pay the price to offer our hands – in applause and in support – to those who have.

So to all veterans – and their families – THANK YOU!

* My stats are from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0931832.html, which has a table summarizing the statistics from the 2000 U.S. census.

YES ... WE ... DID!

That's all I have to say!

Electoral Oracle

Just a quick post here this morning to give you my projection of tonight's presidential election:

OBAMA: 353 MCCAIN: 185

(I'm really hoping it will be Obama 368, McCain 170, meaning Obama wins both North Carolina and Georgia, but, while I'm somewhat optimistic of his chances in both states-- hence my pick that he will win one of them-- I'm not sure that he'll win both. Also, we could very well be looking at 379 to 159, because in both of the above scenarios, I'm giving Missouri to McCain; according to the polls, it's a dead heat).

Who knows what the final numbers will really look like? One result that we can all be pleased about is that W is not winning again!

GO VOTE EVERYBODY!

Final Arguments

Well, here we are, less than 48 hours before the polls close throughout the country (except for maybe Hawaii). Seems like it has been forever, but perhaps that is just because I have been obsessively following poll data for months now. (It has certainly been more fun to follow Obama's ascent in the polls in recent days than to witness the football poll results with Georgia's sad, sad performance Saturday).

Here's basically what each campaign has argued at the lowest common denominator level, which is pretty much where you end up 48 hours before the election:

OBAMA:

1. I'm not a Republican. Did I mention that the current administration is Republican?

2. McCain is a Republican. Just like Georgia W. Bush. W really screwed us, didn't he?

3. See numbers 1 and 2.

3A. (Not made by Obama, but well rooted out there): Palin's a nutcase.

MCCAIN:

1. Yes, I'm a Republican, but I'm a Mavericky Republican.

2. Hey, look over there, I think I see an old washed-up terrorist!

3. Hey, look over there, um, socialism!

The polls suggest that the only question we have to ask ourselves is, will it be a landslide? Most "experts" are predicting a victory for Obama of somewhere in the 330s or so (out of 538 possible Electoral Votes). Of course, the experts have been wrong before, most notably in 2000.*** It is still important to get out to the polls and vote. Nothing is in the bag. And, if you live in Georgia, like me, we actually have a big-time contested race for the first time in recent memory. Obama has an outside chance, but what I am really referring to is Jim Martin's attempt to boot Saxby Chambliss after one term. For those who do not live in this state but are fairly aware of political stories and such, Saxby Chambliss is the man who took down his predecessor Max Cleland, a Vietnam war veteran (and triple amputee from wounds suffered in that war), in part by running some of the nastiest ads imaginable, basically associating Cleland (literally, not figuratively-- that is, photos right next to each other) with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Because I watched the Atlanta Falcons football game today, I saw about 14 ads total from both sides in the Senate battle; of those, I'd say maybe 8-9 were from Chambliss or the National Republican Senatorial Committee. All 14 of them except for Jim Martin's own direct ads were negative. Two separate negative ads against Chambliss-- attacking him on tax policy and for the federal bailout plan-- were run by a 527 group I had never heard of (the Patriot something or other) and the National Demoractic Senatorial Committee. Chambliss's own direct negative ad really was the worst one, though, proving that once again, Chambliss is the master of slime. (For those that have seen it, I am talking about the one that accuses Martin of basically being a direct cause of the death of children in a DFCS case in the mid-90s).

Incidentally, yesterday, Chambliss was caught on the record by a NY Times reporter saying something along the lines of "the other folks [African-Americans, i.e.] are voting" so "our folks" need to come out. So you kind of know where he is coming from in the context of Old South racial politics, methinks.

Random fact for those of you who do not know: Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin are old frat brothers-- Chambliss was one year ahead of Martin at UGA. However, cream always rises to the top: Martin attend law school at the University of Georgia, while Chambliss, apparently unable to pass muster at admissions and unlikely to stand the academic rigor of the law school at his own alma mater, attended the University of Tennessee.

This might be my last pre-Election Night post. So, even though I know you all already will, I will say it anyway: GO VOTE!!!

*** Yes, it took an extreme effort of will not to rant and rave about 2000, W, the Supreme Court, the general debacle of 2000, and the travesty of history that carried forward from that terrible, terrible result.