'Illegal' is racism in disguise

Then what would you call someone who is here illegally? There is a huge difference in characterizing a group of people who are here illegally today as illegal aliens and in the term used in the eugenics movement long time ago. The analogy does not work. Why is it so wrong to use the term illegal aliens (immigrants)? They are not legal immigrants, who obey the law, accept the hassles of red tape, but like to be a part of America.

What would I call someone who is here "illegally"? Human. A revolutionary. I wish you would walk one day in that person's shoes -- preferably when that person is crossing the desert.

The eugenics movement is still alive! Its repercussions are still felt nowadays. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which stated the only requirement for citizenship was being white, was repealed in 1965. It was until that year that immigration ceased to be based on ethnicity/race. A long time ago? Bullshit.

We should all study the effects the eugenics movement has had on U.S. society and laws. Not only concerning the immigration issue, but on reproduction (planned parenthood), AIDS, the disabled, institutionalized racism, gays, etc.

Long time ago..?

Ken, were the Europeans who took over this continent concerned about obeying the laws of the land when they arrived, or dealing with what you refer to the "hassles of redtape?"

And is it a coincidence that the vast majority of this continent's incarcerated population -- some 75% or more -- have black or brown skins?

Like Ramiro, I wish you would walk one day in the shoes of the people that you so freely judge -- preferably, while crossing the desert at peril and being pursued by the INS.

Hypothetical question-Should all peoples whose genetics originated from another land mass or geographic area should give up where their forebears settled, surrender the laws they have created to keep an orderly society and protect their interests, and move back? Let's see where shall we start...how about the "native" tribes of what is now known as North America. There must have been inhabitants that were already here at the time of that migration. Maybe they were conquered. We don't know as there is no record. Should all "native Americans" go back across the Bering Straits to their genetic "point of origin"? Should the descendents of the Celts now in Great Britain move back to Anatolia? Oh that's right it's Turkey now. The Turks should make amends to the Celts, don't you think? I am sure they will see the light and dissolve their laws in favor of Social Justice so the Brits, Irish, and Scottish can move back to the home of their ancestors. Or the Lombards, Gauls, and other tribes who settled in Italy after the Romans fell, should they go back to where they came? How about the Persian Empire? They conquered and displaced a lot of locals. Tell Iran to give it all back and dissolve its borders. Watch them laugh before they behead you. The Han Chinese conquered China from all the other tribes there, and now they have forcibly annexed (conquered) Tibet. (Ever wonder why there aren't any Tibetan suicide bombers?) Tell them to ignore their current laws and give it all back. We all at some point came from somewhere else. Historically speaking, we have all been conquered or are descendents of conquerers or tribal warriors who took the enemy tribe's women, or have migrated into other peoples lands and struck deals to live there in relative peace. The history of human culture is full of scenarios just like I just mentioned. The planet had a different land mass in ancient times and bears absolutely no similarity to what we see now. Anyone who claims any land they live on or immigrated from is their place of genetic and social origin is in most cases entirely mistaken, once the facts are known.

So according to the Immigration Act of 1790 white people from abroad were referred to as aliens too. I guess the part that is now most objectionable is the "illegal" part, (which has changed in meaning since those extremely racist times and now refers to anyone, white or not, who has crossed the US border "illegally", i.e., undocumented). Objectionable, that is, if you do not believe in following the rules and obeying laws wherever you may be in this world. If that is the type of person you are, admit you do not like laws that inconvenience you, and are basically an anarchist. Then don't be surprised when one day you end up in jail or deported after breaking one of those laws you ignored.

Correction: I meant the Naturalization Act of 1795, not the "Immigration Act of 1790".

Lots of people do not like laws that "inconvenience" them. Most people I have encountered in this world, in fact. It is self-evidently absurd to say that they all share a particular politics--and are "anarchists."

Your "anarchist" bogeyman does little to cover up your ridiculous assumptions--for example, that all laws in all nations should always be accepted. I have certainly never met anyone who actually believes THIS. It made me laugh, though.

If I was "walking in the shoes" of a poor Mexican, I would do two things:

A) Struggle to improve my own country. What's wrong with Mexico? It is rich in natural resources. There is no war there, no famine, drought, no huge natural disaster preventing this. Organize and/or join mass protests all over Mexico to end the absurdly corrupt, racist, and inhumane government, and the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and working classes in my home country, risking jail, life and limb to achieve social justice in my own homeland. Form unions and demand a living wage and humane working conditions. Get international worker support ("Workers of the World Unite!). Like we did in the USA. Workers were killed by corrupt law enforcement and greedy bosses, it was a tough and long struggle, but it was worth the effort. Now we have Labor Unions and though there is more work to be done, it is better than before. If we could do it so can Mexico.

B) Tell anyone within earshot that by running across the border to live "under the radar" in the USA that they will run into big trouble by entering that way if they are not lucky, and to stay home and improve the situation there achieving social and economic justice for all Mexicans, not just themselves.


Please note: Neither of these things involve walking across a hot dangerous desert chased by foreign authorities, paying off criminal smuggling enterprises linked to drugs and guns, and when encountering the troubles that accompany such a rash decision, complain loudly about the sovereign laws of another country which make living "under the radar" as a non-citizen difficult.

Okay, good point. Nobody likes laws that inconvenience them but civic minded people generally follow them if they are justified. And some laws like anti-drug laws punish peaceful citizens along with hardened criminal meth and heroin addicts. More than inconvenient, those laws are illogical and cruel and need to be changed. Smokin' a doob never hurt anyone.

How about completely justifiable laws, like those that *every* nation has to protect it's borders? Name me one civilized or developed nation on this planet that does not have laws regarding the legal status of it's inhabitants.

Someone does not make enough money in their own country, so instead of struggling to change that situation there or file papers pay a fee and wait to leave for elsewhere for a better life, (I know it's messed up, too long a wait, too much money, and that will have to change but until then...) they break the neighboring country's "inconvenient" laws that protect that nation from terrorists, criminals or other undesirable individuals and international fugitives to jump their border to escape the hard work involved in getting their own country's act together, stepping ahead of those who have done the hard work to emigrate legally. Then they complain that things are too tough for them in the neighboring country when they get caught with no papers. Like they didn't know what to expect? Hello? Please. Spare me the whining. What we need to do here is change the immigration laws to speed up processing and make it more affordable to poor folks, and better secure the borders, north and south.

I and many others here would be totally sympathetic to US border-hoppers if there was a bloody war, inhumane dictatorship, natural disaster, starvation on a mass scale, or some other Mexican or South American humanitarian crisis pushing all those folks over our border but that is not the case by a longshot.

Peace out

reply to my last post:
<Your "anarchist" bogeyman does little to cover up your ridiculous assumptions--for example, that all laws in all nations should always be accepted.>

What an absurd reply. I never made that statement. "All"? "Always"? Your words, not mine. For example, marijuana laws. Totally unfair, unjust, and unjustified. Fight to change them but until then expect to get busted by the cops if you smoke in the wrong public space (in other words, somewhere other than the field at UCSC on 4/20 or a String Cheese Incident concert). And don't whine about it. You know the law and the risks.

Same goes for immigration laws and border-jumpers hiding from the "man". They knew the risks, they know they are breaking laws that are necessary for any nation's safety and well-being, but take no responsibility for their actions and they put their kids at risk too, which is totally irresponsible. So there goes that argument.

If you find yourself in Singapore, you would be wise to not spit a used piece of gum on the street. If caught, you will be "caned" in public on your ass. You live elsewhere and don't agree with that law? Then avoid Singapore. If you, a foreigner, go there to challenge their laws, the punishment will be harsh. You or I may not like it, but that is reality.

Another popular assumption is that people who enter the USA undocumented from Mexico are "victims". As far as I know, Mexico is not suffering from war, famine, mass displacement, a brutal dictator, or natural disasters (the volcano is dormant at this time). If that were the case, anyone trying to escape that kind of misery should be made an exception for humanitarian reasons, like the Vietnamese "boat people" or hurricane victims, or Iraqis escaping the carnage of roadside bombs and bloody Army raids.

No, they just want a better life, like so many here in the USA. More opportunity than their own stingy corrupt racist government and extremely wealthy business community chooses to give them. Good for them, they should do what is best to attain that. Like a mass protest or national strike. Revolution! Sneaking in neighboring countries across borders and then telling them their borders should not exist is not the way to do it however. Talk about "getting off on the wrong foot..."
A few get lucky but most end up in sweatshops. A lot get deported. A totally predictable situation. There is freedom of choice at play here, so the "victim card" does not apply.

I don't care what part of the world you are in, you can't just go cherry-picking the laws you want to follow or ignore. If you don't think any society needs laws, that is the dictionary definition of an anarchist. Nothing wrong with being an anarchist, it is just a naive and unrealistic "philosophy", that's all. It is predicated on the assumption that all people are intelligent enough to practice it correctly. Guess what-most aren't. You want proof? Turn on the TV. IMO, anarchists are good to have a few around to "tweak" uptight high society now and then and little else. As a movement it is dead in the water.

So, I ask: do you think border protection laws should not be "accepted"? Worldwide? Really? Or does that just hold for the USA, an obvious double standard? Anyone would be very disingenuous to even suggest that. And I am being kind here. That is all I meant to say.

My comment about all laws in all nations was based on this:

"Objectionable, that is, if you do not believe in following the rules and obeying laws wherever you may be in this world."

I assumed that you were not simply stating the obvious and saying that you should recognize that laws exist and if you get caught breaking them you will be punished. I assumed you meant "believe in following" as in "feel morally obliged to obey such and such laws." But based on your most recent post, it seems like you enjoy stating the obvious as if it were an argument.

I agree that anarchism is mostly "dead in the water," although I glean this insight from real historical events and trends such as the defeat of mass-based anarcho-syndicalism in Spain, etc. If you think you learned this from what your television tells you about human nature, then . . . . Let's just say I will leave you to the fascinating debate about Chicano nationalism vs. U.S nationalism.

I get the feeling I am being pigeon-holed here rather than engaging in a real exchange of ideas about serious issues. Therefore I will end my side of this thread with this message.

It is no wonder why the left is so fractured and generally ineffective in this country. Sure it's up against Big Bux and Big Brother, but it is partly because of the stifling of free speech and independent ideas in its ranks by a lot of immature emotional-based propaganda from dozens of groups each with it's own self-serving agenda that has no need for addressing the concerns of the general voting public who will ultimately decide who wins the next election.

The right wing doesn't even have to lift a finger to "divide and conquer" the left. They just sit back and watch them argue, then they organize a solid propaganda attack, and with the help of suppressing minority votes, win. Seems to have worked for too long now.

I do not watch much TV at all, contrary to the patronising comment in the last Reply. I would rather get news from Tompaine.com, Indybay or other internet sources. Daily Show, Colbert Report, and the History Channel sums up my boob-tube time and sometimes CNN to see Attorney General Gonzales and the generals get deservedly lambasted by the Democrats in Senate hearings. The rest in my estimation is sub-intelligent crap designed by Corporate America to brainwash, sell junk, and stupify.

So it looks like you hit the wrong mark, sorry to disappoint you, kid.

The lesson I learned about "anarchists" (intellectual anarchists hardly seem to exist anymore) comes from direct experience-my anti-Vietnam War days. (The anti-nuke protests in the 80's - 90's were generally peaceful due to affinity group training). Those folks are interested in nothing but a showdown with baton wielding riot cops for no particular reason other than the rush of setting off a violent reaction.

Like the WTO protests in Seattle and in SoCal recently. Those fools do not contribute one good thing to the process. But they get to go home and feel "cool". "Wow bro' did you see the look on that cop's face when I clipped him with that rock? DUDE!" seems to sum up that crowd.

Bush's polls are at a new low. The voting public has turned to the Democratic Party for a change. Impeachment is "on the table". If the cards dealt are played right, the left has a chance now to "win the minds and hearts" of the mainstream voting public for the first time in my memory. I am convinced that this issue if not handled in a wise fashion will alienate and divide the general public from steering the country away from the right. Yet again. For what? The non-existent "right" of inhabitants of another country to pour in over our borders unchecked? It ill serves the undocumented workers already here to take that position. It invites a backlash, which is a typical anarchist tactic.

Immigrant rights are already in place. If you immigrate, you have been documented and have all the rights accorded to any US citizen. If you sneak in, you are taking your chances and when the shit comes down, it's your fault you got taken advantage of and then busted and no one else's. 'Nuff said.

Later days.

Did I say I watched CNN for Senate hearings? Aargh.
I meant C-SPAN.

That's all. Bu-bye.

...to be factually correct, as an immigrant is fine anywhere, illegal immigrants however, are not.

Considering all the outrage over illegal immigrants in the U.S, it's surprising how little attention is paid to how Mexico treats illegal immigrants crossing its southern border... Oh well...

It seems like some people don't have anything better to do than spout their idiocies on the internet..

Look, the way "Mexico" treats undocumented migrant people is in direct result of U.S. foreign policy. That's right, since Plan Puebla-Panamá has been underway, the U.S. Government actually PAYS the Mexican government to enforce its immigration laws against Central Americans to decrease the flow of migration created by neoliberalist policies like the FTAA and PPP. It seems idiots like these think they have won the debate when they dish out stupid catch-phrases like these...as if we just LOVED the Mexican government. Give me a fucking break.

The fact that "Jimmy" thinks Mexican people aren't already marching, mobilizing, organizing and demanding change shows how little "Jimmy" knows about the politics tied to this issue. There are constant revolts in Mexico, big and small, as well as marches, strikes, sit-ins, etc. To think that you have "freedom of speech" in this country which you would get killed over if, gasp, you dared to speak out or do anything about shit, is just another lame unfounded excuse and proves how little people know about the struggles happening not only in Mexico, but all around the world.

The reason why I wrote this letter to the editor was to protest against connotation. "Illegal" as an adjective is fine, ex: "She made an illegal turn." But to use this word as a noun, ex: "He is an illegal", is just fucking racist. This is the concept which has its beginnings in the Eugenics movement. Simple.

Now go and get a life..

i guest a thief is a consumer in disguise, a rapist is a lover in disguise etc. illegal is what it is. an activity that violates the law. it does not matter how many ways that you try to hide behind people who migrated here legally and try to assume their identity as a immigrant, you still remain a criminal aka illegal. for example mexican is no more a race than is american so there is no racism involved. again we see you stealing someone else's history and in doing this you devalue and make a mockery of the black struggle in this country, but i forget , you care about no one but yourself. you even steal from your countrymen/women/children who chose to be honest and come here legally and then you steal their id here by pulling them into the mess you have created. save the bs about the mystical history. you only fool those who have not studied it and believe the lies as truth. that link to the nazi history and other things are just another pack of lies and the twisting of history for your agenda. if you are such warriors, you should have freed mexico from the elites. instead you come here as fake warriors, but still being used by the elite as tools for their own agenda. wake up and refuse those that mesquerade as your leaders and friends. they are going to turn on you once they are finished using you.