President Obama has set his sights on immigration reform, and that’s a good thing. The issue has been a political lightning rod, with demagogues exploiting the issue of so-called “illegal aliens” for political gain. They conjure up the image of the Mexican worker who steals all the jobs from honest, hard-working Americans, and brings crime and disease across the border. Another popular stereotype is that of the Muslim immigrant with an Arab surname who is not to be trusted, coming to these shores to plot and spread terror.
But this is nothing new, and throughout history the U.S. has maintained a love-hate relationship with immigrants. Without question, immigrants have been vital to the growth of the nation. But many were treated like dirt when they first arrived. Ethnic whites such as Irish, Italians, Jews and Eastern Europeans were regarded with disdain for their poverty, their culture and religion, and where applicable their darker skin. I.Q. tests were designed in an attempt to prove their mental inferiority. They were excluded from employment and educational opportunities, and formed their own institutions in response. Of course, these were the days when the concept of “whiteness” was far less inclusive than it is today, and some European immigrant groups were rendered the functional equivalent of people of color.
As for immigrants of color, such as Asian-Americans, there was a fear of the “yellow peril” and the “brown hordes” that fueled a racist exclusionist immigration policy, culminating in the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps on U.S. soil. And Mexican-Americans have been on this soil longer than Anglos, yet they are branded as aliens and exploited for cheap migrant labor. What an inglorious history we have to confront.
The Tea Party movement, a twenty-first-century incarnation of the angry white mob—with corporate backing no less—exploits the fear of the foreigner. They and their cohorts in the anti-immigrant movement stoke the fires of hatred and resentment, among a population hit by recession and searching for the enemy. There are those who want the U.S. to build a giant fence on the border with Mexico, not unlike the Berlin Wall or the Israeli security fence. History has shown us that this is not a good idea. Meanwhile, the more extremist elements take the law into their own hands and commit acts of anti-Latino violence, as the Southern Poverty Law Center has so capably documented. And how ironic, or fitting perhaps, that Tom Tancredo, one of the most vocal and visible spokespeople for the immigrant-hater crowd, is himself the grandson of Italian immigrants. How soon people forget!
And for the Teabaggers, President Obama’s foreign affiliations—as someone who had a Kenyan father and lived in Indonesia during his childhood—provide a bonus which allows them to express their xenophobic sentiment. Visiting other countries, understanding other cultures and speaking foreign languages are an anathema to some among us. All the talk about Obama’s birth certificate is really racist and xenophobic code language. It reflects their desire to return to a time, presumably the good ol’ days such as the fifties, when whites had it all, and people of color were invisible— except when they were serving someone food or cleaning a toilet. Meanwhile, Latinos are the largest “minority” group in America, a reality which unsettles a segment of the population.
There are 12 million undocumented immigrants, and they are not going anywhere. They are a group with third-class status, lurking in the shadows of civic life devoid of rights. Because of this, businesses are more than eager to exploit their cheap labor. And yet, though many have lived in America for years and raised their children here, they often must face deportation and separation from their family members who have U.S. citizenship. A nation that purportedly stands for “family values” cannot tolerate such a state of affairs.
Yet, the undocumented make for a good scapegoat because they are powerless. How easy it is to blame your troubles on a migrant farm worker who makes cents on the dollar, rather than the banks that robbed you and all of us blind, then were rewarded by the government for doing it? And what of the age of globalization and outsourcing, and the globetrotting transnational corporations that search for the nations with the lowest cost of labor, driving wages down in the process? Simple minds and simple people search for the easy answers, afraid to get their feelings hurt if they stumble upon the truth. So, they blame it all on the farmworker picking oranges, as if that was a job they really wanted in the first place.
Indeed, there is a moral justification for immigration reform and putting people on a path to citizenship. It is the right thing to do, so that people can live with dignity and raise their families with security. But even if you don’t care about the moral component, perhaps you wish to hear the economic reason for immigration reform.
According to the Center for American Progress, comprehensive reform would add $1.5 trillion in additional GDP over 10 years. Meanwhile, an enforcement-oriented strategy of mass deportations costs the U.S. $2.6 trillion in GDP over ten years. For a nation running out of money, continuing to pursue the current misguided policies amounts to cutting off our nose to spite our face.
So, it is good that the President is looking at immigration reform. In the meantime, let us ignore the Tea Party people and let their mentality die a natural death.
March 18, 2010
Detroit As a Farm
Recently I read about Detroit's new plan to scale back the city. With a substantial population decline over the years, and the effects of urban blight and abandoned buildings, the Motor City has a plan to downsize. Specifically, there's a plan afoot to demolish the abandoned and unlivable parts of the city, and move people to stronger parts of the city. Then, as much as a quarter of the 139-square-mile city could become farmland. It is an idea that is worth exploring, at least.
That we've reached the point of entertaining the idea--of turning Detroit into a semi-rural city--reflects both a crisis of failed urban policies, and an opportunity to rebuild from the ashes.
Detroit was at one time a potent symbol of American industry. And its decline today, like that of America itself, seems to foreshadow the future of the American urban center. Once boasting a population of 2 million, Detroit now has less than half that amount. The once titanic U.S. auto industry is a remnant of its former self. A casualty of self-inflicted wounds and fierce competition, the U.S. auto makers have relied of late on government largesse and taxpayer philanthropy.
In a former life, I lived in Detroit as an analyst in the auto industry. It was the early nineties, my first three years after college. I could not help but notice that a sparkling downtown was surrounded by a no-man's land-- a forbidden zone, if you will, of burned out, crumbling and otherwise vacated buildings. This was a memorial of sorts, to white flight, to the riots of the sixties, from which Motown never really recovered. The sprawling suburbs prospered fabulously, as if they did not need the city, when they were actually benefiting at the city's expense. And a corrupt black political leadership exploited the people, as pimps tend to do.
The region relied on one industry for its bread and butter, and thought it was the center of the world. The big three auto makers were sloppy and arrogant, producing shoddy gas guzzlers and maintaining stifling, top-down, military-style bureaucracies that killed good ideas and the spirits of even better people. But I digress...
Detroit declined for the same reasons that other American cities have met a similar fate, or are flirting with such a trajectory. We have failed to invest in our cities, our people and communities, our children's education, and in infrastructure. We do invest in prisons for black and Latino folks, though, breaking up their families and breaking down their communities. The result is urban blight, alongside the environmental effects of an industrialization, in a society dependent on over consumption.
So, with that context in mind, it seems fitting that Detroit attempt to restore itself to a more natural state. We cannot argue that more cities should become greener places, where people rely on localized agriculture. But I have some questions about the Detroit plan.
First, there is the destruction of communities and the role that ordinary people will have in any plan that is implemented. What will happen to those who remain, and who decides this?
Second, there is the issue of economic empowerment. Would the mostly African-American population benefit from a new, rural Detroit, or would the lion's share of the agricultural profits benefit big agribusiness? In a country with a long tradition of discrimination, history has not been kind to the black farmer. A group of black farmers recently reached a $1.25 billion settlement with the USDA. Yes, billion. These farmers claimed, among other things, that the USDA systematically denied loans and farm subsidies to them. In some cases, even when they were awarded a loan, the agency dragged its feet in paying out the money, so that farmers ran out of time to plant their crops and repay their debts.
President Obama should be commended for doing the right thing and committing his administration to civil rights enforcement. At the same time, Black and Latino contractors have received a mere 1.1 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively, of the $46 billion in contracts from Obama's federal stimulus program. It should be no surprise that in this society, people of color frequently seem to miss out when there are opportunities to be had. The rewards always seem to go to those with the right connection, not to mention the right complexion. Gender discrimination finds its way in there, too. Why would Detroit Farms be any different?
The point I'm making here is that people seeking more sustainable ways of living is a wonderful thing. But as society develops these new ideas and structures, it cannot fall into the same patterns of funky behavior, exclusion and injustice. Otherwise, the Detroits of America are only setting themselves up for colossal failures in the future. And all the green pastures in the world will be unable to cover them up.
That we've reached the point of entertaining the idea--of turning Detroit into a semi-rural city--reflects both a crisis of failed urban policies, and an opportunity to rebuild from the ashes.
Detroit was at one time a potent symbol of American industry. And its decline today, like that of America itself, seems to foreshadow the future of the American urban center. Once boasting a population of 2 million, Detroit now has less than half that amount. The once titanic U.S. auto industry is a remnant of its former self. A casualty of self-inflicted wounds and fierce competition, the U.S. auto makers have relied of late on government largesse and taxpayer philanthropy.
In a former life, I lived in Detroit as an analyst in the auto industry. It was the early nineties, my first three years after college. I could not help but notice that a sparkling downtown was surrounded by a no-man's land-- a forbidden zone, if you will, of burned out, crumbling and otherwise vacated buildings. This was a memorial of sorts, to white flight, to the riots of the sixties, from which Motown never really recovered. The sprawling suburbs prospered fabulously, as if they did not need the city, when they were actually benefiting at the city's expense. And a corrupt black political leadership exploited the people, as pimps tend to do.
The region relied on one industry for its bread and butter, and thought it was the center of the world. The big three auto makers were sloppy and arrogant, producing shoddy gas guzzlers and maintaining stifling, top-down, military-style bureaucracies that killed good ideas and the spirits of even better people. But I digress...
Detroit declined for the same reasons that other American cities have met a similar fate, or are flirting with such a trajectory. We have failed to invest in our cities, our people and communities, our children's education, and in infrastructure. We do invest in prisons for black and Latino folks, though, breaking up their families and breaking down their communities. The result is urban blight, alongside the environmental effects of an industrialization, in a society dependent on over consumption.
So, with that context in mind, it seems fitting that Detroit attempt to restore itself to a more natural state. We cannot argue that more cities should become greener places, where people rely on localized agriculture. But I have some questions about the Detroit plan.
First, there is the destruction of communities and the role that ordinary people will have in any plan that is implemented. What will happen to those who remain, and who decides this?
Second, there is the issue of economic empowerment. Would the mostly African-American population benefit from a new, rural Detroit, or would the lion's share of the agricultural profits benefit big agribusiness? In a country with a long tradition of discrimination, history has not been kind to the black farmer. A group of black farmers recently reached a $1.25 billion settlement with the USDA. Yes, billion. These farmers claimed, among other things, that the USDA systematically denied loans and farm subsidies to them. In some cases, even when they were awarded a loan, the agency dragged its feet in paying out the money, so that farmers ran out of time to plant their crops and repay their debts.
President Obama should be commended for doing the right thing and committing his administration to civil rights enforcement. At the same time, Black and Latino contractors have received a mere 1.1 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively, of the $46 billion in contracts from Obama's federal stimulus program. It should be no surprise that in this society, people of color frequently seem to miss out when there are opportunities to be had. The rewards always seem to go to those with the right connection, not to mention the right complexion. Gender discrimination finds its way in there, too. Why would Detroit Farms be any different?
The point I'm making here is that people seeking more sustainable ways of living is a wonderful thing. But as society develops these new ideas and structures, it cannot fall into the same patterns of funky behavior, exclusion and injustice. Otherwise, the Detroits of America are only setting themselves up for colossal failures in the future. And all the green pastures in the world will be unable to cover them up.
Disproportionality is Killing America
The word disproportionality has been on my mind a great deal lately. The definition of disproportionality is the state of lacking symmetry or proportion; of being out of proportion, as in size, shape or amount; of being unequal. In order to better understand the concept of disproportionality, consider a punishment of ten years' imprisonment for littering. Now that's out of whack. That's disproportionality.
Unfortunately, when you look around you at life in the United States, at the culture and the politics of the place, this country is rife with disproportionality. And it seems as is if this dysfunctional state of affairs has been normalized.
Children are introduced to this concept in public schools, with zero tolerance policies that lead to the expulsion, if not the imprisonment, of students for minor infractions and silliness. At the same time, troubled youth-- lacking outlets, encouragement, self-esteem, and a person who will listen-- have not learned conflict resolution skills. Their approach is to react to all arguments and perceived disses through acts of violence, you know, just like nations do.
America's criminal justice system certainly is disproportional. In the land of the free, 5 percent of the world's population boasts 25 percent of the world's prisoners. Bad drug laws and sentencing guidelines fill the prison cells with nonviolent offenders. The vast majority of these prisoners are black and Latino, not to mention poor and uneducated. The vast majority of the judges and lawyers are white. And not only are these poor black and Latino inmates warehoused in rural white districts, they are counted in the population of those districts, thereby benefiting those areas. In the days of the Great Recession, state governments are smothered by the prison boom, as corrections spending competes with education and social welfare, and aims to win.
Disproportionality reigns supreme in our economic, social and political systems. In America, guns are in abundance, while millions of people cannot find a job or afford to keep their home. There is a right to own a weapon, but no right to employment or shelter. Such is the state of affairs in a banana republic such as the United States, equally bankrupt in finances and ethics. And a small group of people have all of the money, or most of it, at least, with the top 1 percent owning 42 percent of the wealth. Corporations are people, too, with just as much freedom of speech as the average human being, and just as much of a right to pour millions of dollars into a political campaign. Banks destroyed that artifact once called the American middle class, yet were rewarded for their failure and greed with a bailout. We were told the perpetrators needed that money, or else the entire economic system would have collapsed. But where is the bailout for the victims?
These days, the U.S. Senate is one of the more blatant examples of pure disproportionality in action. In this august body, great ideas find their final resting place, and laws are sold to the highest bidder. Under Senate rules, the minority has the power to control the game, although they lost the election. An individual senator can become king or queen for a day, a petty dictator with the power to shut down the entire joint by simply blocking the body's ability to vote. One person--whether through a manifestation of greed, vanity, cruelty, ignorance, mental instability, or other--can deny a million people an extension to their unemployment benefits, furlough thousands of federal workers, block a White House nominee, or shoot down crucial health care or financial reform. These are things of which crumbling empires are made.
Disproportonality from within, disproportionality from without. A nation that is supposedly broke has adequate resources to fight two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accounts for 41.5% of the world's military expenditures. America maintains military bases in many countries, including wealthy and technologically advanced countries such as Germany, Japan and South Korea. And as their children are groomed for a high-tech world of computers, millions of America's children are hungry, undereducated, and groomed for a life behind bars. And yet, the U.S. has to protect these nations because they are vulnerable?
Am I the only one who is concerned here? Perhaps I'm just blowing all of this out of proportion.
Unfortunately, when you look around you at life in the United States, at the culture and the politics of the place, this country is rife with disproportionality. And it seems as is if this dysfunctional state of affairs has been normalized.
Children are introduced to this concept in public schools, with zero tolerance policies that lead to the expulsion, if not the imprisonment, of students for minor infractions and silliness. At the same time, troubled youth-- lacking outlets, encouragement, self-esteem, and a person who will listen-- have not learned conflict resolution skills. Their approach is to react to all arguments and perceived disses through acts of violence, you know, just like nations do.
America's criminal justice system certainly is disproportional. In the land of the free, 5 percent of the world's population boasts 25 percent of the world's prisoners. Bad drug laws and sentencing guidelines fill the prison cells with nonviolent offenders. The vast majority of these prisoners are black and Latino, not to mention poor and uneducated. The vast majority of the judges and lawyers are white. And not only are these poor black and Latino inmates warehoused in rural white districts, they are counted in the population of those districts, thereby benefiting those areas. In the days of the Great Recession, state governments are smothered by the prison boom, as corrections spending competes with education and social welfare, and aims to win.
Disproportionality reigns supreme in our economic, social and political systems. In America, guns are in abundance, while millions of people cannot find a job or afford to keep their home. There is a right to own a weapon, but no right to employment or shelter. Such is the state of affairs in a banana republic such as the United States, equally bankrupt in finances and ethics. And a small group of people have all of the money, or most of it, at least, with the top 1 percent owning 42 percent of the wealth. Corporations are people, too, with just as much freedom of speech as the average human being, and just as much of a right to pour millions of dollars into a political campaign. Banks destroyed that artifact once called the American middle class, yet were rewarded for their failure and greed with a bailout. We were told the perpetrators needed that money, or else the entire economic system would have collapsed. But where is the bailout for the victims?
These days, the U.S. Senate is one of the more blatant examples of pure disproportionality in action. In this august body, great ideas find their final resting place, and laws are sold to the highest bidder. Under Senate rules, the minority has the power to control the game, although they lost the election. An individual senator can become king or queen for a day, a petty dictator with the power to shut down the entire joint by simply blocking the body's ability to vote. One person--whether through a manifestation of greed, vanity, cruelty, ignorance, mental instability, or other--can deny a million people an extension to their unemployment benefits, furlough thousands of federal workers, block a White House nominee, or shoot down crucial health care or financial reform. These are things of which crumbling empires are made.
Disproportonality from within, disproportionality from without. A nation that is supposedly broke has adequate resources to fight two unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accounts for 41.5% of the world's military expenditures. America maintains military bases in many countries, including wealthy and technologically advanced countries such as Germany, Japan and South Korea. And as their children are groomed for a high-tech world of computers, millions of America's children are hungry, undereducated, and groomed for a life behind bars. And yet, the U.S. has to protect these nations because they are vulnerable?
Am I the only one who is concerned here? Perhaps I'm just blowing all of this out of proportion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)