Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
Sometimes, people argue about one thing, when they really mean something else.
A father tells his daughter not to date John, because John has poor manners, or because John doesn’t have a job, or because John gets poor grades in school, or because John is too fat, or too old or too young, or because John dresses funny.
But what the father really means and doesn’t say is, “Don’t date John because he’s black and we’re white.” That’s personal bigotry. His daughter understands the message.
Now, long after Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus sent the Arkansas National Guard to block school integration, and Alabama’s Governor George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, institutionalized bigotry has become somewhat more subtle.
Our Supreme Court’s hearing on Arizona’s disingenuous immigration law is an example. You will hear many comments, explanations and excuses for this law, all of which skirt the central issue: Arizona’s bigots don’t like Mexicans. Period.
Think of the words used to describe illegal immigrants. “Rapid population growth and demographic transformation, downward pressure on wages, the burgeoning crime wave, deteriorating public services and increasing tax-payer burden.” I cut and pasted from a “reasonable,” anti-immigrant web site. The South knows these deceptive words well. They were used to describe the “nigras” of yesteryear.
What is the difference between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant? A piece of paper. Nothing more. Otherwise, they look the same. They act the same. They have the same traditions and mores. Undocumented aliens are no more likely to commit a crime than documented, in fact, less likely. They pay taxes, just like the legals, and they aren’t stealing jobs. They create jobs by being consumers. They came here to create a better life — just as your parents did.
There simply is no meaningful difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant. The lives of Arizona citizens are not affected by the legality or illegality of any immigrant.
The laws on immigration are not like other laws. They are not based on real harm to other people. They are an exclusionary effort by xenophobes, who were lucky enough to have their citizenship, and now invent excuses for why others shouldn’t enjoy the same benefits. It’s what the British term, ‘I’m all right, Jack.”
The legality of an immigrant is just an arbitrary definition that has no effect on you, me or on any other citizen. A change in the law could make all those illegal immigrants, legal tomorrow. How would that change the life of any Arizona citizen? Not at all. Our archaic immigration laws require years and years of jumping through hoops, but serve no useful function for our society. There is no valid reason why a person cannot become a citizen in just a few months.
And, now comes Supreme Court Justice Scalia with the rest of his notorious band. You remember, Justice Scalia, he of the strictly interpreted Constitution (i.e. “I don’t care about people. I only care about 18th century law.”) This is the strict interpreter who presumably would vote for slavery, because our founders had slaves.
During the hearing, he asked sarcastically:
“The state has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there?” And, “What does ‘sovereignty’ mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?” And, “Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you’re not concerned about harassing them.” And, “We have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?”
Ah, the innocence of his “reasonable” questions. Why of course a state can close and defend its borders. We see it all the time — those gates and guards on every road between states — don’t we? And no, we don’t have to please Mexico; we can act like the boorish, bullying gringos the rest of the Americas thinks we are.
His “reasonable” comments remind one of another reasonable idea from yesterday: “separate-but-equal.” Bigotry gets its power from “reasonable” people.
This 2nd worst Justice, on one of the truly inferior Supreme Courts in history, tells us he is oh-so-concerned about Arizona’s ability to defend itself and it’s borders. Indiana, in the center of our country, has a similar law. Do they also need to “defend” their borders? Perhaps from Tennessee?
While Scalia is our 2nd worst Justice, he is not alone in his exercise in bigotry and truculence. I predict many on the Supreme Court will assume police have sufficient clairvoyance to determine just by looking, whether a person is illegal, so that without evidence or warrant, they can demand proof of citizenship.
Of course, none blonde and blue-eyed will be interrogated.
This court that gave us Citizens United (because money doesn’t buy elections) and Bush v. Gore (because states’ rights, which suddenly have become important, were meaningless, then) now aches to besmirch its already shameful legacy with yet another outrageous decision.
I predict this Court, with its young, activist (yes, activist) justices, will continue eroding our human and civil rights, and in the future, the Lazarlus poem on Statue of Liberty America will be lost to memory.
Apparently, it already is.
I award Justice Scalia two traitor images.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports
12 thoughts on “–Institutionalized bigotry and reasonable people.”
So, who is the first worst justice?
Who’s your selection?
Justice Clarence Thomas, an Antonin Scalia clone. Thomas seems not to be an independent jurist but mimics Scalia at every turn without an original thought of his own.
His mean spirited weakening of Affirmative Action looks like another case of I got mine, screw you. Does 40 years of trying to correct the United States of America’s original sin erase 250 years of free labor under abhorrent conditions along with another 100 years of Jim Crowe laws? Yet, this man, who has benefited from Affirmative Action policies, thinks that 350 years of institutionalized racism ceases to have a negative influence on society.
And on national TV, he called Anita Hill a liar, when it was he who lied. A real scumbag.
Why should we bother to check anyone’s passport at airports or Visa status at anytime? If the idea is free and widely open borders, then why scrutinize Europeans, Middle-Easteners, or Asians stepping off planes? Seems like not enforcing any sort of border control between the US and Mexico unfairly punishes people from nations that don’t have the benefit of being able to walk into the country.
So, if I’m opposed to the clearly unconstitutional, racial profiling inherent in the Arizona law, that means I don’t want to enforce any sort of border control. Right?
You seem to get very defensive very quickly. This is a discussion, no?
What would be you border control proposal than? We have relatively strict controls on people entering the country through airports… with a porous southern border. People tend to take for granted that if it looks like you probably came here on a plane, then you went through a check point. If it looks like you walked or drove across, then unfortunately there’s a stigma that maybe you didn’t pass through the proper checkpoint. Sure there are a great many of legal immigrants from nations to the south, just as I’m sure there are folks that came here from Europe or Asia via indirect methods or who have stayed long past the time their visa allows.
A discussion can exist only when there are reasonable comments. I have little use of, and less time for, nonsense. If I accused you of wanting to completely close our borders so that no one could get in, and to require everyone in America to carry a passport, would you respond in a measured and logical manner?
What exactly is the border control problem? Are we afraid of terrorists? From my readings, none have been caught by border control agents — not in airports and not on our borders.
Are we afraid of Mexicans stealing our jobs? Are we afraid of Canadians stealing our jobs? What exactly is the problem?
I’ll answer the question. The problem is the 5+ -year wait to become a citizen. It’s complete, xenophobic BS. There is not one reason in the world why someone can’t be a citizen in a couple of months. And that would solve the illegal alien problem.
Given the knowledge that citizenship was available in a reasonable time, people would apply for citizenship, and the number of illegals would drop like a stone.
The law is creating the problem.
But you’re the guy who wants to put a Berlin wall and death zone on our border.
(How did that comment feel? 🙂 )
though i totally agree with you, rodger, i think that these racist policies are, in an odd way, a good thing (well, not for the immigrants, of course).
i’ve been hearing that, for the 1st time in a long time, the immigration has reversed and that mexicans are leaving this country in droves. so, the illegal immigration problem from south of the border has pretty much disappeared. the problem is that it’s gonna take a few years for the average (white) joe on the street down there to figure it out.
but figure it out they will, cuz they’re losing consumers and (sales) taxpayers and that’s gonna negatively impact the local economies–look at Alabama as an example. given the national drive towards austerity, there will be no one else around locally to pick up the slack. at some point, even with these fools, reality will set in…
one more thing–i live up in the northeastern US and it’s difficult to live here for any period of time without meeting someone who is either a native-born canadian or descendant from one or relative of one. and i’m under the impression that quite a few of them are here illegally, yet, you never hear anyone complaining about illegal immigration from NORTH of the border.
gee, i wonder why??
“Given the knowledge that citizenship was available in a reasonable time, people would apply for citizenship, and the number of illegals would drop like a stone.”
that may not be totally true, though i understand your point. i married a foreigner back in the mid-90s and the wait was 2 years and the cost 2000 bucks. and had we used a lawyer, it woulda been a $1000 more.
i could be wrong, but i’m under the impression that a lot of these people are poor. applying for permanent residency/citizenship is NOT cheap, so the wait time may not be the only factor.
Why does it need to be expensive? The federal government doesn’t need prospective citizens’ money. Make it a free application.
anyhow, if all countries had their deficits high enough to meet “net savings desires,” we could then pretty much have open borders, cuz practically NO ONE would come here for any reason other than vacationing.
it’s because governments intentionally impoverish their citizenry that there’s any immigration at all.