The Irrationality of Anti-Immigrant Fanatics
In an article on the nativist site VDare.com called "White Immigration Can Be A Problem Too", blogger David Orland (who also writes for Michelle Malkin's fanatical "Immigration Blog") reveals the utter stupidity of those who ignorantly oppose immigration due to fear and hatred.
Orland opens his piece with a summary of the current trends of immigration in Britain, focusing especially on immigrants from Poland and ex-Soviet countries who have recently been admitted to the European Union. Orland claims that 447,000 (legal) immigrants from these countries have entered Britain since visa requirements were removed in 2004. Orland describes the effects of this influx of East European immigrants:
Open borders enthusiasts have been quick to point out the story’s bright side. The vast majority of the new arrivals are young, few bring children or elderly relatives with them, and a remarkable 97 percent are employed full-time. The Slavic invasion of Britain, they conclude has been a smashing success.
Despite there being no reason to believe that these new immigrants have been anything but very beneficial to British society, Orland goes on to cite the results of polls taken in Britain which reveal (apparently unfounded) strong anti-immigrant sentiment. Taking these ignorant attitudes as evidence of the dangers of immigration -- while ignoring the above-mentioned positive aspects of these immigrants -- Orland claims that these numbers should "fuel public concern about the pace and scale of Britain's transformation." Very telling is his characterization of the immigration trend as a "Slavic invasion" -- it seems that even when characterizing these immigrants as "white," ethnicity (and the typical European distaste for Slavic peoples) remains central to the anti-immigrant frenzy.
Failing to rebut the beneficial effects of immigration and relying solely on popular ignorance, Orland concludes that this trend of immigration is profoundly harmful to British society. He further concludes that the failure of British politicians to forcefully prevent all immigration is in some way "tragic," although he never provides a single reason why substantial immigration should harm anyone.
The knee-jerk, irrational distaste for new immigrants displayed in this article, whether based on racism or simple ignorant fear of the unknown, may have been seen as appropriate in colonial Britain, however such attitudes have no place in the 21st century. If the human race is to make any progress toward a more peaceful and advanced society, this sort of malicious foolishness must stop immediately.
Chaos in Iraq
The New York Times has published a leaked briefing from the United States Central Command in charge of operations in Iraq, which characterizes the situation there as "edging toward chaos." The briefing, which was prepared by Brig. General John M. Custer, includes a PowerPoint slide with "a color-coded bar chart that is used to illustrate an 'Index of Civil Conflict'" in Iraq. This chart, with extremes at "Peace" and "Chaos", shows the current situation as standing within the "red", less than 1/4 of the chart length from "Chaos."
This briefing reveals not only that the Bush administration has been willfully misrepresenting the situation in Iraq (as when Cheney remarked 2 weeks ago that things were going "remarkably well"), but also that opponents of the war who have been smeared as "defeatist" for their negative assessments of the war are supported by the facts.
Unwilling to address the reality presented by this report -- that their pet war is devolving into chaos and probable civil war -- Republican supporters of the war have predictably turned on the Times, accusing it of treason and sedition for publishing the leaked briefing. Far-right Republican commentator Michelle Malkin, along with others, has called for the Times to be charged with (and presumably convicted of) treason, which carries a sentence of death.
Blogger Glenn Greenwald, in response to this rabid attack on the Times, commented on how revealing such responses are:
This is what the ideal world of the Bush follower looks like: If the Government is waging a war and things are going horribly, the Government has the right to lie to its citizens and claim that things are going remarkably well. If a newspaper is furnished with documents prepared by the military that shows that the Government is lying and that things are actually going very poorly, the newspaper should then be barred from informing their readers about that truth — and ought to [be] criminally prosecuted, perhaps even executed, if they do so. It truly takes an authoritarian mind of the most irredeemable proportions to watch our political leaders have their lies exposed about a war and have as their first reaction the desire that those who exposed the lies be prosecuted and imprisoned.
It truly is astounding to see the lengths to which defenders of the Bush administration are willing to go to stifle any truth that challenges their carefully constructed fantasy world. Most telling is the fact that not one of these commentators has even attempted to rebut or minimize the conclusions of this briefing, and have instead just flat-out ignored its contents. Since the Republican right holds military authority to be sacrosanct, these unthinking pundits are unable to launch their standard smear-and-spin attacks, and so are sadly forced to try to deflect attention from the issue with frothing attacks on the Times as "traitorous" and as revealing "important secrets" to the enemy (of course this briefing contained no information the insurgents in Iraq didn't already have).
The findings of this briefing may surprise many Americans, who have grown accustomed to the optimistic lies of the Bush administration and their propaganda, however the disconnect between American conceptions of the war in Iraq and the reality on the ground might also stem from another source. Throughout the war, the American media has consistently portrayed the Iraqi insurgency as disorganized and incompetent, and has failed to place insurgent actions in any kind proper context.
Contrary to the characterization by the media of insurgent actions as random acts of wanton violence, the insurgency has operated in an organized manner according to clear objectives (the destruction of infrastructure, destabilization of the political climate in Iraq, incitement of sectarian conflict, producing heavy casualties among Iraqi collaborators and American military, etc) and has achieved remarkable success. In the tradition of guerrilla and asymmetric warfare, what the insurgents lacked in raw military power they more than made up for in political savvy and careful application of force. The mosque bombing in Samarra, for example, was a major turning point in the war as it mobilized the Shiites to take action against Sunnis, vastly increasing the severity of sectarian conflict, destabilizing the political process, undermining the legitimacy of the Shiite-dominated government, and drawing U.S. forces into the midst of raging sectarian conflict. This bombing was presented in the West, almost without exception, as an atrocity (which it certainly was) with no wider strategic or political implications (which it certainly wasn't).
The media, whether because of a dearth of information or through intentional biases, has failed to present the challenge to the American military in an accurate way. The result of this is a widespread failure among Americans to realize the seriousness of the insurgency and their success in fomenting widespread conflict. Although this misrepresentation, if intentional, was probably justified by the media as beneficial to the American war effort, it has had serious negative consequences for the ability of the American public to understand the situation in Iraq. The leaking of this briefing, though not revealing any new information, may provide an impetus for more serious and honest assessments of the enemy being fought in Iraq.
The assessment presented in this briefing should also be recognized in a historical context. The record of occupying powers against native insurgencies throughout the world has been consistently one of defeat and humiliation, with few if any exceptions. Despite this, in the tradition of blind American exceptionalism, the Bush administration promised a short and easy victory in Iraq. Even once this illusion had been shattered with the emergence of insurgent groups, it was promised that American military might and nation-building skill would prevail over the enemy. As things are going now, it seems more and more likely that as Iraq devolves into chaotic conflict and civil war, American military forces there will be forced to leave, having failed to establish any semblance of infrastructure or order. When politicians and pundits on the right warn of the humiliation and loss of prestige that would come with a planned, chosen withdrawal, they certainly do not envision such chaos as the alternative -- maybe it is now time for them to consider the possibility of such an ending, before Americans are forced to flee from Iraq, clinging to the skids on the last helicopter.
Immigration and Prejudice
With the signing into law by President Bush of an immigration reform law that authorizes the construction of a massive "security fence" stretching 700 miles along the US-Mexican border (along with a slew of high-tech border surveillance measures), the heated debate over immigration is reaching new levels. These new measures, intended to stop the flow of undocumented or "illegal" immigrants into the US, could cost anywhere between $2 billion and $9 billion, however money has not yet been appropriated by Congress for the construction of the fence.
In the past year, immigration has arisen as such a heated issue within the US that numerous conservative politicians have based their campaign platforms on their dedication to completely stopping the influx of immigrants from Mexico. That this issue was arbitrarily brought to the fore in the national consciousness by the prodding of Republican leaders (who suddenly cried that immediate action was necessary to stop the destructive influx of "illegals"), and that it conveniently serves as an excellent distraction from the ever-worsening situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, has not at all subtracted from its perceived seriousness, especially among Republican supporters.
In every media outlet in the country, Republican commentators talk of the horrible danger posed to "our way of life", "our culture", "our economy" and "our language" by the evil hordes of malicious "illegals". Within the anti-"illegal" movement, it is taken as ironclad truth that "illegals" are milking social programs dry, corrupting American values, and demanding that Americans speak Spanish. Drawing from the stated goals of small Mexican fringe groups, these anti-immigrant groups claim that Mexican immigrants are also committed to the reconquest of the American Southwest. Furthermore, anti-immigrant groups circulate news stories of undocumented immigrants who have been arrested and/or convicted of crimes. These stories ostensibly provide the basis for the widespread (within the movement) belief that "illegals" are responsible for a massive wave of violent crime in the US, and therefore pose a serious threat to the safety of Americans.
Much is revealed by the rhetoric and vocabulary used by the opponents of illegal immigration. First there is the obvious labeling of undocumented (or illegal) immigrants as "illegals". This labeling, which deprives people of even the small dignity of being called illegal immigrants, reduces all immigrants who cross the border without the sanction of the state to inhuman embodiments of criminality. These people are viewed as "illegal" and nothing more -- their mere existence in the United States is seen as both an affront to all American people and as a serious criminal act which many propose should be categorized as a felony. This conception of undocumented immigrants as purely "illegal" serves to further reinforce the view (mentioned above) that immigrants are in some way fundamentally anti-social, criminal, and prone to violence. This fanatical obsession with the inviolability of the law, coupled with a violent disgust for those who violate it, is almost amusing coming from the same pundits who never fail to excuse or minimize President Bush's contempt for legal provision.
While most Americans have been shown to be comfortable with depriving non-Americans of many constitutional protections and civil rights (for example, regarding the legal rights of accused terrorists), many in the virulently anti-"illegal" movement seek to deprive undocumented immigrants of virtually all human rights. Any attempt to afford these immigrants access to courts, the ability to appeal detention and status as "illegal", the right to humane treatment, or basic standards of human dignity (such as not being assaulted and detained by people such as the Minutemen solely for being suspected of being an "illegal") are passionately opposed.
Whether or not the majority of this movement -- which labels human beings as "illegals" and seeks to deprive them of all rights -- can technically be called "racist" or not is largely irrelevant. While the vast majority of people in this movement will dismiss any claim of racist motivation, there is a glaring absence of outcry over illegal immigration of non-Hispanic people. Furthermore, the myriad hateful stereotypes of laziness, criminality, dirtiness, etc are frequently attributed to "illegals". These stereotypes are defended on the grounds that "illegal immigrants aren't a race", and therefore the claims supposedly cannot be racist. Once again, these stereotypes are almost never applied to non-Hispanic immigrants, making it seem likely that anti-"illegal" sentiment has become a convenient -- though thinly veiled -- excuse for racism.
Even among those who do not hold such obviously racist views, this extremist movement is unquestionably nativist, xenophobic and based on ignorant fears of anything different -- fears that have been actively stoked by politicians and the President. While a reasonable argument can be made for immigration reform, these virulent, hateful, and ignorant beliefs are totally unacceptable in any civilized country. The widespread dehumanization of Hispanic immigrants through terms such as "illegals" and fictions of natural Hispanic criminality are not only repugnant to any thinking person, they are profoundly dangerous. This same breed of ignorant hatred has formed the basis for countless hate crimes, oppressive government policies, war crimes and atrocities throughout the world. While issues of immigration policy will be and should be discussed, such ignorance serves only to poison minds with hatred, and has no place in any respectable society.
