We disagree a lot in this country. A spirited, passionate, boisterous debate is the underpinning of our political system. One fact most of us won't disagree about, however, is that America was built by immigrants. That conviction has been part of our DNA from the very beginning. Tedious legal arguments aside, unless you are a Native American, your ancestors came into this country as immigrants. From 1776 to 2006 we took in an estimated 72 million legal immigrants, about 13% of all who ever lived here. By 2006 12 million lawful permanent immigrant residents inhabited our country. Another 12 million had already become naturalized citizens. (The Globalist, Nov. 29, 2006). On a typical day we process 110,000 foreigners coming into the country, 3,100 receive migrant visas, while 1,500 enter illegally - and there is the rub. Unauthorized migration has been our main policy concern, although the vetting of migrants from target countries for potential terrorist ties has recently also become a significant security focus.
From colonial times onward immigrants arrived in waves. Our first settlers came during the early 1600s in search of religious freedom. Persecuted groups like the Pilgrims established a colony in Plymouth, and between 1630 and 1640 some 20,000 Puritans settled the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As early as 1619 20 immigrants from West Africa, who arrived against their will, were forced into indentured servitude as slaves. Their number sadly ballooned to 700,000 by 1790.
During the period from 1776 to 1819 we accepted around 6,500 immigrants each year. From 1820 to 1879 - during the "continental expansion" period, this number grew to an annual average of 162,000. And from 1880 to 1924, during the Industrial Revolution, these numbers increased again, to 584,000 per year, while dropping to approximately 178,00 after 1925. (Compiled by Vernon Briggs, Cornell University).
Throughout our brief history anti-immigrant sentiment, mostly prompted by fear and/or ignorance, surfaced periodically. The concerns expressed usually included perceived affects on our economy, negative environmental impacts from accelerated population growth, increased crime rates, and changes to traditional identities and values. (Marisa Abrajano, "White Backlash: Immigration, Race and American Politics," Princeton University Press, 2015). More specifically, these arguments have been, and still are, articulated in terms of "national identity," the fear of losing the identity of the native population by an infusion of destructive traditions, culture, language and politics; "isolation," the fear that immigrants may isolate into their own communities, leading to the development of ghettos or parallel societies, rather than assimilating into the native culture; and an increase in competition for scarce resources, like social welfare systems, housing, education, etc. Over the years, opposition to immigration, for whatever reason, led politicians to make policy adjustments to existing laws.
President John Adams signed the Naturalization Act in 1798, which increased the period of residency required for an immigrant to attain American citizenship to 14 years. The Alien Friend Act and the Alien Enemies Act accompanying this legislation gave the president the power to deport any foreigner if he considered such person dangerous to the country. During the mid 19th century anti-immigration fervor turned decidedly anti-Catholic, culminating into the "Know-Nothing" Party. The Roman Catholic church had become the single largest denomination in the U.S., primarily on the strength of immigration from Ireland and Germany. The first significant law restricting immigration into the United States was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, passed by Congress and signed by President Chester Arthur. This act provided an absolute 10-year moratorium on Chinese labor immigration. Chinese laborers had entered the country during the 1850s, first working in gold mines, and subsequently in agricultural enterprises and factories. They were particularly instrumental in building railroads in the American west. As they became more successful, resentment by other workers increased, which eventually prompted Congress to act. A 1917 law required immigrants over 16 years old to pass a literacy test. The Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system, favoring immigrants from Western Europe, and prohibiting migrants from Asia. The Immigration Act of 1965 did away with quotas, and allowed sponsoring relatives. Current immigration patterns favor Latin America and Asia.
A plaque installed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty bears the text of a poem written by Emma Lazarus, which reads in part: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses yearning to be free." These words have long been favored sentimentally by many interested in immigration and immigration policy. However, they probably had limited applicability, even when written in 1883. Immigration has always served an economic purpose. Whether we are talking about colonial development, indentured servitude, Chinese railroad workers, factory workers, or agricultural laborers harvesting our crops, legally or not, we, as a country, would not have had the economic success we are so eager to flaunt without this labor pool. If immigration had ceased with the signing of the Declaration of Independence, our population would now probably only be somewhere around 125 million. Immigration fuels the economy. Immigrants increase our productive capacity and raise GDP. "Immigration surplus" has been estimated to amount to $36 to $72 billion per year. (Pia Orrenius, "Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs," George W. Bush Institute, 2016). The current debate about eliminating the DACA program, the proposed construction of a demonstrably ineffective wall on our Southern border, or scaling back the H-1B Visa program, limiting employment of highly skilled foreign workers, could have a damaging effect on our economy. Deporting the 800,000 plus "dreamers" enrolled in the DACA program alone could cost our economy more than $400 billion. (John Schoen, CNBC, Sept. 5, 2017).
Throughout our history anti-immigrant sentiment, articulated and marshaled by populist politicians exploiting fear and ignorance, have run counter to rational economic policies. As always, simplicity sells, complexity breeds vulnerability. We should compel Congress to apply basic economic principles when developing policies that affect us all.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Monday, September 18, 2017
COMFORTABLE OR NOT, IT'S CALLED "FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
Charlottesville, Va., home to the University of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson's mountain-top plantation Monticello, underwent a significant image change as a result of the violent demonstrations it encountered during the weekend of Aug. 11-13. One important outcome of the overt hatred on display that weekend was that many of us began to revisit the concept of "freedom of speech." Are white nationalists, the KKK, neo-Nazis and others protected by the First Amendment to our Constitution when they openly exhibit their hatred of people solely because of their race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender? The issue surfaced well before "Charlottesville, when it came up as a result of the disturbances following UC Berkeley abruptly cancelling a planned February speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. As a consequence of the negative press the university received, and the cumulative pressure generated nationally by recent events, Cal Chancellor Carol Christ decided to proclaim this school year a "free speech" year.
The First Amendment to our Constitution, officially adopted Dec. 15, 1791, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the free exercise of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Predictably, legal challenges delineating specifically what these rights did and did not include proliferated. Multiple courts concluded that the amendment included concepts like: The right not to speak - specifically the right not to salute the flag (West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette - 1943); using certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (Cohen v California - 1971); and engaging in symbolic speech, like burning the flag in protest (Texas v Johnson -1989). Excluded was the right to incite actions that would harm others - like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (Schenck v United States - 1919).
In "Matai v Tami" (2017), Justice Samuel Alito, writing in support of a unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, wrote: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate."
Citing legal precedent, the ACLU, generally left-leaning, sued the city of Charlottesville to allow the "Unite the Right" rally to happen downtown. After numerous participants arrived carrying loaded firearms the organization appeared to retrench retroactively, publicly expressing that "firearms and free speech don't mix." However, legally, the relationship between the First and Second Amendment is complicated, and the issue was not pursued.
Had the demonstration taken place in countries like Germany, France, Denmark, The Netherlands and others, chances are that participants would have been fined or jailed. Many countries have laws forbidding hate speech. We don't, even though there have been times in our history where such legislation was actively pursued. An early assault on free speech came from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which permitted prosecution of individuals who voiced or printed what were deemed to be malicious remarks about the president or the government. The acts were passed by a Federalist Congress, signed by President John Adams, and designed to limit the power of the opposition Republican Party. Enforcement ended after Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800.
Another attempt was made in 1918 when Congress passed a different Sedition Act, essentially consisting of amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917, prohibiting many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of our government or our flag." It was intended to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of US enemies during wartime. Some 1,500 prosecutions were carried out, resulting in more that 1,000 convictions (Paul Avrich, Sacco and Vanzetti; The Anarchist Background, Princeton University Press, 1991). The amendments were repealed in 1921. The Espionage Act was left intact.
While we correctly assert that the opinions expressed during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville ran counter to the values we as a country embrace, it would be un-American to deny sympathizers the right to hold these. Justice Alito's opinion in "Matal v Tami" should resonate with all of us. Marches and hate spewing diatribe from white nationalists and Nazis, and, for that matter, Colin Kaepernick protesting racial inequality by kneeling during our national anthem, may make many feel outright uncomfortable. Denying them the right to do so will make all of us less American.
The First Amendment to our Constitution, officially adopted Dec. 15, 1791, reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting the free exercise of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Predictably, legal challenges delineating specifically what these rights did and did not include proliferated. Multiple courts concluded that the amendment included concepts like: The right not to speak - specifically the right not to salute the flag (West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette - 1943); using certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (Cohen v California - 1971); and engaging in symbolic speech, like burning the flag in protest (Texas v Johnson -1989). Excluded was the right to incite actions that would harm others - like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (Schenck v United States - 1919).
In "Matai v Tami" (2017), Justice Samuel Alito, writing in support of a unanimous Supreme Court decision affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, wrote: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate."
Citing legal precedent, the ACLU, generally left-leaning, sued the city of Charlottesville to allow the "Unite the Right" rally to happen downtown. After numerous participants arrived carrying loaded firearms the organization appeared to retrench retroactively, publicly expressing that "firearms and free speech don't mix." However, legally, the relationship between the First and Second Amendment is complicated, and the issue was not pursued.
Had the demonstration taken place in countries like Germany, France, Denmark, The Netherlands and others, chances are that participants would have been fined or jailed. Many countries have laws forbidding hate speech. We don't, even though there have been times in our history where such legislation was actively pursued. An early assault on free speech came from the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which permitted prosecution of individuals who voiced or printed what were deemed to be malicious remarks about the president or the government. The acts were passed by a Federalist Congress, signed by President John Adams, and designed to limit the power of the opposition Republican Party. Enforcement ended after Thomas Jefferson was elected president in 1800.
Another attempt was made in 1918 when Congress passed a different Sedition Act, essentially consisting of amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917, prohibiting many forms of speech, including "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of our government or our flag." It was intended to prevent insubordination in the military, and to prevent the support of US enemies during wartime. Some 1,500 prosecutions were carried out, resulting in more that 1,000 convictions (Paul Avrich, Sacco and Vanzetti; The Anarchist Background, Princeton University Press, 1991). The amendments were repealed in 1921. The Espionage Act was left intact.
While we correctly assert that the opinions expressed during the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville ran counter to the values we as a country embrace, it would be un-American to deny sympathizers the right to hold these. Justice Alito's opinion in "Matal v Tami" should resonate with all of us. Marches and hate spewing diatribe from white nationalists and Nazis, and, for that matter, Colin Kaepernick protesting racial inequality by kneeling during our national anthem, may make many feel outright uncomfortable. Denying them the right to do so will make all of us less American.
Friday, September 8, 2017
THE FACES OF WHITE SUPREMACY
The contentious and ultimately lethal demonstration in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend of Aug. 11 highlighted a conglomeration of groups which no longer seem to feel the need to operate under the cloak of obscurity. Marchers carrying Tiki torches, swastikas, confederate flags, banners reading "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil," while yelling Nazi slogans left little to the imagination.
In the aftermath of President Trump's botched and highly controversial pronouncements about the violence surrounding this event, every observer and columnist analyzed the repercussions about what happened from all angles and in great detail, leaving little to dissect. Some questions are still left unanswered, however. Who are these people? How many are there? What inspires them? What is their support structure? Do they have First Amendment rights to spout the venom that appears to unite them?
The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an activist group focused specifically on the development and existence of "hate groups," defines such collectives as organizations with "beliefs or practices that attract or malign an ethnic class of people typically for their immutable characteristics." Since the turn of the century the number of hate groups have seen explosive growth, driven in part by anger over Latino immigration and demographic projections showing that whites will no longer hold majority status in the country by 2040. The increase in numbers accelerated in 2009 when President Obama took office, declined somewhat after that, and picked up speed again during the last two years because of a presidential campaign that flirted heavily with extremist ideas. (Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate Map, Aug. 17, 2017).
The groups most prominently identified during the discussion following the Charlottesville events include: Neo-Nazis, white supremacists or white nationalists, Ku Klux Klan, and Alt-Right. Although organizationally distinct, ideology and leadership of these groups often overlap. The neo-Nazis grew out of the National Socialist Movement, which was founded in1974 as the "National Socialist American Workers Freedom Party." This group seeks to revive the far-right tenets of Nazism. It borrows elements of Nazi doctrine, including ultra-nationalism, racism, ableism (discrimination in favor of able-bodied people), xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Neo-Nazi literature frequently highlights "14 words," referencing the white supremacist slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," or alternatively: "Because the beauty of the white Aryan woman must not perish from this earth" ("Hate on Display: 14 words," Anti-Defamation League, June 1, 2007). The current national leader of the Nazi movement is Jeff Schoep, who has been a "true believer" since age 10, and who took over in 1994, propelling the NSM into the most active neo-Nazi organization in the country.
"White supremacy" refers to the conviction that white people are in many ways superior to people of other races, and, because of that, white people should dominate other races. This belief is rooted in scientific racism, which claims to establish a connection between race and intelligence, and distinguishes between superior and inferior races. "White nationalism," by extension, is the ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity, suggesting that national citizenship should be reserved for white people only. Leading promoters of white nationalism are Matthew Heimbach and Richard Spencer. Heimbach, in an article entitled: "I Hate Freedom," wrote: This is our home and our kith and kin. Borders matter, identity matters, blood matters, libertarians and their capitalism can move to Somalia if they want to live without rules" (Traditionalist Youth Network, July7, 2013).
The Ku Klux Klan, better known, was founded in 1866 as a vehicle to oppose Reconstruction policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for African-Americans. David Duke, a white-nationalist politician, anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard, remains influential. He made a point of thanking the president for having the courage "to tell the truth" following the Charlottesville events.
The "Alt-Right," a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies, makes a point of influencing these demonstrations wherever they take place. The group was initially identified as "Alternative-Right" by Paul Gottfried, and American paleo-conservative philosopher. Richard Spencer changed the name in 2010 to disguise overt racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism. Lindy West, a New York Times opinion writer referred to this designation as an "unacceptable euphemism legitimizing an ideology that would be unacceptable if it were simply called white nationalism."
All of these far-right groups find editorial support and encouragement on websites like "Daily Stormer," a neo-Nazi news and commentary site, and Breitbart News, which expresses similar views, and takes the lead attacking all opinions not in line with its own. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's Chief Strategist until just a few week ago, has retaken his previous position as Breitbart's Executive Chairman. These ideologies are substantially supported by individuals who occupy influential positions. Among them are people like Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump's Senior Advisor for Policy, and Sebastian Gorka, the president's deputy assistant. Both of these have well-established connections to the white supremacist movement and neo-Nazi extremism. And they have the president's ear.
Enough said. To quote Heather Heyer, the 32-year old paralegal, a counter-demonstrator, killed on Aug. 12 by Nazi sympathizer James Field: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
In the aftermath of President Trump's botched and highly controversial pronouncements about the violence surrounding this event, every observer and columnist analyzed the repercussions about what happened from all angles and in great detail, leaving little to dissect. Some questions are still left unanswered, however. Who are these people? How many are there? What inspires them? What is their support structure? Do they have First Amendment rights to spout the venom that appears to unite them?
The Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, an activist group focused specifically on the development and existence of "hate groups," defines such collectives as organizations with "beliefs or practices that attract or malign an ethnic class of people typically for their immutable characteristics." Since the turn of the century the number of hate groups have seen explosive growth, driven in part by anger over Latino immigration and demographic projections showing that whites will no longer hold majority status in the country by 2040. The increase in numbers accelerated in 2009 when President Obama took office, declined somewhat after that, and picked up speed again during the last two years because of a presidential campaign that flirted heavily with extremist ideas. (Southern Poverty Law Center, Hate Map, Aug. 17, 2017).
The groups most prominently identified during the discussion following the Charlottesville events include: Neo-Nazis, white supremacists or white nationalists, Ku Klux Klan, and Alt-Right. Although organizationally distinct, ideology and leadership of these groups often overlap. The neo-Nazis grew out of the National Socialist Movement, which was founded in1974 as the "National Socialist American Workers Freedom Party." This group seeks to revive the far-right tenets of Nazism. It borrows elements of Nazi doctrine, including ultra-nationalism, racism, ableism (discrimination in favor of able-bodied people), xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Neo-Nazi literature frequently highlights "14 words," referencing the white supremacist slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," or alternatively: "Because the beauty of the white Aryan woman must not perish from this earth" ("Hate on Display: 14 words," Anti-Defamation League, June 1, 2007). The current national leader of the Nazi movement is Jeff Schoep, who has been a "true believer" since age 10, and who took over in 1994, propelling the NSM into the most active neo-Nazi organization in the country.
"White supremacy" refers to the conviction that white people are in many ways superior to people of other races, and, because of that, white people should dominate other races. This belief is rooted in scientific racism, which claims to establish a connection between race and intelligence, and distinguishes between superior and inferior races. "White nationalism," by extension, is the ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity, suggesting that national citizenship should be reserved for white people only. Leading promoters of white nationalism are Matthew Heimbach and Richard Spencer. Heimbach, in an article entitled: "I Hate Freedom," wrote: This is our home and our kith and kin. Borders matter, identity matters, blood matters, libertarians and their capitalism can move to Somalia if they want to live without rules" (Traditionalist Youth Network, July7, 2013).
The Ku Klux Klan, better known, was founded in 1866 as a vehicle to oppose Reconstruction policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for African-Americans. David Duke, a white-nationalist politician, anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard, remains influential. He made a point of thanking the president for having the courage "to tell the truth" following the Charlottesville events.
The "Alt-Right," a loosely defined group of people with far-right ideologies, makes a point of influencing these demonstrations wherever they take place. The group was initially identified as "Alternative-Right" by Paul Gottfried, and American paleo-conservative philosopher. Richard Spencer changed the name in 2010 to disguise overt racism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism. Lindy West, a New York Times opinion writer referred to this designation as an "unacceptable euphemism legitimizing an ideology that would be unacceptable if it were simply called white nationalism."
All of these far-right groups find editorial support and encouragement on websites like "Daily Stormer," a neo-Nazi news and commentary site, and Breitbart News, which expresses similar views, and takes the lead attacking all opinions not in line with its own. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's Chief Strategist until just a few week ago, has retaken his previous position as Breitbart's Executive Chairman. These ideologies are substantially supported by individuals who occupy influential positions. Among them are people like Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump's Senior Advisor for Policy, and Sebastian Gorka, the president's deputy assistant. Both of these have well-established connections to the white supremacist movement and neo-Nazi extremism. And they have the president's ear.
Enough said. To quote Heather Heyer, the 32-year old paralegal, a counter-demonstrator, killed on Aug. 12 by Nazi sympathizer James Field: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)