Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The convenience of cooking at home Previous entry: Because woah

State legislators, please stop inciting violent bigots. Please.

Crime

Usually, I tend to laugh at kooky, go-nowhere bills offered by super-wingnutty state legislators.  But lately, the winking at domestic terrorists and the feeding of paranoia that leads to violence makes it not funny anymore.  This item from Think Progress, for instance.  Texas Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, Republican of course, introduced a bill reading:

A law enforcement agency that has custody of an illegal immigrant to whom this article applies may:
(1) release or discharge the illegal immigrant at the office of a United States senator or United States representative during that office ’s normal business hours; and
(2) request an agent or employee of the United States senator or United States representative to sign a document acknowledging the release or discharge of the illegal immigrant at the senator ’s or representative ’s office.

The idea is clearly to harass federal legislators until they just get rid of all the undocumented immigrants, and sadly I don’t think Kolkhorst and folks like her care very much what it would take.  They just don’t, as I’ve said before, want to hear anyone speaking Spanish at the grocery store ever again.  Never mind that many legal immigrants and native-born Americans also speak Spanish, so really, even if Kolkhorst got her way, she still wouldn’t get her way. 

But what worries me greatly about this bill is not that it’ll pass, but the implications of it.  Kolkhorst is basically saying that she thinks immigrants—-or immigrants from Mexico, since I highly doubt she’s thinking of Europeans that are living here without documents—-are icky, and that if you’re exposed to them, too, you will also see that they’re icky and will come around to her point of view.  And that point of view is frighteningly dehumanizing, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

The issue here is that a lot of white people hate Mexican immigrants and people of Mexican descent.  They often hate with a burning, obsessive passion.  And bills like this, even if they don’t pass, send the signal that their bigotry is shared by people in authority, and some of them will feel emboldened by this to do really awful and violent things.  Like I noted yesterday at Double X:

But domestic terrorists are different.  Many of them believe that they do have community support behind them, and that most of the community is just cowed by political correctness from speaking out.

That quote was in reference to Shawna Forde, who murdered a man and his daughter, and wounded his wife (American citizens, not that it should matter, but just adds another level of understanding of what happened) just because they were Hispanic, and she hated Hispanic people.  People like Forde are emboldened when they see people in power signaling support for their virulent hatred.  Remember that Scott Roeder decided to murder Dr. Tiller after he sat in on a trial where Phill Kline used his powers as a government official to witch hunt Dr. Tiller.  For domestic terrorists, getting signals of support from people in government matters to them. 

David Neiwert wrote movingly about the results of this kind of bigotry and the violence it breeds:

The people who broke into her home late at night while she was sleeping with her new puppy on the living-room couch and cold-bloodedly shot her in the face while she pleaded for her life were people who did not see her, or her father or mother, as human beings. They were people who had become so accustomed to dehumanizing Latinos that they didn’t care about the devastation they brought to Arivaca and the lives of this family. They were so consumed by hate that they had no humanity left themselves.

The dehumanizing language of scapegoating and eliminationism—the naming and targeting of other humans for the supposed social ills they incur, followed as always by words urging their excision from society, if not the world—is endemic on the American Right. And among right-wing extremists, it intensifies, grows and metastasizes into something lethal and monstrous.

This bill is built on eliminationist ideas, especially the assumption that the mere presence of an undocumented worker in the sight line of federal level politicians will upset them so much they decide to take action, action which is also eliminationist, in that it’s focused on “scrubbing” out a subsection of the American population with deportation.  (Or, in a lot of cases, long jail sentences.)  This sort of thing sends a signal to the Shawna Fordes of the world that their hatred is justified, and so are the things they do in the name of it, which in her case involved shooting a little girl in the head. 

So, no, as wacky as this bill is, I don’t think it’s very funny at all.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:27 AM • (48) Comments

It would be sweet justice, though, if those state legislators immediately started on the documentation process for those undocumented immigrants, helping them to take full advantage of the opportunities this country offers.  That people take unheard of risks to come to the US to make a better life for themselves and their families is all the proof anyone should need that undocumented immigrants are awesome brave and dedicated peoplw who can only bring benefits to the US.

Oh, that’s all null and void because they come from another country?  Huh.  I guess they don’t want me then, either (first generation immigrant, from the UK).  Oh, I’m the right (white) kind of immigrant?  Yeah.  Their agenda isn’t obvious at all.

Racists.  That’s all the right wing is.  Okay, they’re sexist, GLBT-phobic, classist fucknecks, too.  Dogwhistle all you like, fuckers, we’ve got your number.

Comment #1: attack_laurel  on  02/24  at  11:31 AM

Beautifully written by Neiwert.  Really.

Comment #2: Daisy  on  02/24  at  11:33 AM

It seems to me there has always been disconnect between what Americans traditionally tell ourselves about America’s attitude toward immigrants and how we actually treat them.

Emma Lazarus’ words on the base of the Statue of Liberty, the idea of the Great American Melting Pot, where new immigrants are seamlessly integrated into American society, their old cultures and ideas replaced by new American ones, and later on the Great American Stew, where each individual cultural “flavor” is discernible but bound by a common American cultural “gravy” — all these ideas seem overly optimistic, something we want to believe (at least many of us) about ourselves to cover up and distract from the often harsh and cruel realities of the actual immigrant experience.

Too many Americans want to believe there is a single (white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian, British or at least Western European, English-speaking, etc.) American Culture, to which everyone must conform and accept unquestionably or be marked as somehow traitorous.  They don’t mourn the death of a 9-year old simply because she was Hispanic — they don’t see a legitimate place here for Hispanics.  They don’t decry laws that arbitrarily mark all non-whites as potential “illegal aliens”.  They don’t get upset when American citizens are arrested in raids to capture and deport immigrant workers in a chicken-processing plant somewhere. 

All this is an acceptable price (at least they feel it is, if subconsciously) to get what they want:  A single uniform American Republic, from sea-to-shining-sea, where you can speak any language you want (as long as it’s English), believe in any god you want (as long as He’s the Christian God), and exclusively think and behave like a model American (and supporess or eliminate any hint of difference).

This fight has been going on for a very long time, and it looks, unfortunately, like it’s going to drag out for another few decades/centuries before all Americans can accept that the world is a much bigger and diverse place than some may desire.  Sad, so very, very sad…

Comment #3: MikeEss  on  02/24  at  11:50 AM

I am hoping #4 is a troll, because that’s gone from dog-whistling and into screaming.

Comment #4: StarStorm  on  02/24  at  12:01 PM

Troll is trollish and a racist fuckwit playing with eliminationist rhetoric without understanding what it means.  I always like it when the trolls spew vile shit, because it makes it harder for fauxgressives *cough*johnstewart*cough* to say “both sides are really the same!”.  Document your racism, trolls, it’s extremely helpful.

Comment #5: attack_laurel  on  02/24  at  12:15 PM

I read #4 as hilarious sarcasm, StarStorm raspberry

Comment #6: Hobbes  on  02/24  at  12:15 PM

I’m still so upset that most people haven’t even heard of Brisenia.

As for Americans only loving the whitest among us…just keep hating on the brown folk.  Race traitors like me aremKing sure that whites won’t be a majority much longer, and even if my kids look white, they know and love their brown first cousins, aunts, uncles, etc., and the notion of hating on them because they are subhuman is never gonna fly.

Comment #7: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  02/24  at  12:34 PM

That David Neiwert piece that Amanda linked has something of note going on in the comment section: the Guardian is erroneously reporting that the victims are Mexican, and unconvinced that they are wrong.

Comment #8: sacundim  on  02/24  at  12:34 PM

Don’t some of these people know that there were Mexicans who lived in areas of our country before it was America?  That there has always been a tradition of Mexican workers in this country throughout our history?  That the fact that someone speaks Spanish doesn’t mean that they aren’t American?  Or even that Puerto Rico, which is not Mexico but still has Spanish speakers, is a US territory?

This fight has been going on forever.  “Getting rid of the Hispanics (or Mexicans)” didn’t work in the 19th century, or the 20th century, and it’s not working now.  You’d think that they’d realize that they’re fighting a losing battle.

Comment #9: SporkeyO  on  02/24  at  12:35 PM

I find it hard to believe that you would really think the mere enforcement of the U.S.‘s immigration laws inherently constitutes “hate.” Do you believe we ought to become the only nation in the world without laws regulating immigration?

Comment #10: Rnwd  on  02/24  at  12:49 PM

Here’s the part I don’t get. Why are they getting released? Shouldn’t they be deported if they have ended up in police custody?

Comment #11: librarian  on  02/24  at  01:10 PM

Rnwd, the reason you find that hard to believe is that no one said that ‘the mere enforcement of the U.S.’s immigration laws inherently constitutes “hate.”’  This is about passing a new law, that has as its central assumption, the idea that merely seeing an undocumented immigrant will cause the federal officials to react negatively towards that immigrant.  Seems like the actions of someone that hates undocumented immigrants so much that they assume this hatred is a universal and natural condition.

Comment #12: Fatman  on  02/24  at  01:12 PM

Maybe we have this wrong. Maybe it’s a brilliant plan to force legislators to recognize that the illegal immigration debate is about people by introducing legislators to actual undocumented workers.

Comment #13: Jeff  on  02/24  at  01:15 PM

Attack Laurel @ 4: If you are going to slam an entertainer, try to get his name right.  Jon as in Jonathan, not John.

I assume you didn’t mean this guy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_(comics)
or this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_(musician)

but instead are referring to this guy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart

Comment #14: helen w. h.  on  02/24  at  01:26 PM

“Don’t some of these people know that there were Mexicans who lived in areas of our country before it was America?”

They think only WASPs are legitimate citizens of America.  They think the same of Native Americans.  It’s like, “Thanks for maintaining the land until we got here, now GTFO before we shoot yer ass…”

Comment #15: MikeEss  on  02/24  at  01:28 PM

Hey, Rnwd, I was unaware the immigration policy included shooting sleeping nine-year old American citizens for the crime of being brown.

Comment #16: katydid  on  02/24  at  01:32 PM

Um, @ 5.

Comment #17: helen w. h.  on  02/24  at  01:37 PM

@#14:  Spelling correction noted, the rest of the comment still stands.

Comment #18: attack_laurel  on  02/24  at  01:50 PM

“This is about passing a new law, that has as its central assumption, the idea that merely seeing an undocumented immigrant will cause the federal officials to react negatively towards that immigrant.”

It’s not limited to “undocumented” immigrants.  You can’t glimpse at someone and know they’re undocumented.  But you can glimpse at someone and tell they are not your standard issue white-Europeanoid.

This whole thing is framed as a response to “illegal immigration”, but in fact it’s aimed at all immigration, legal or not.  They don’t just want to keep some people out, they want many people who are already here to go away too.  They want to construct a climate, where, even if they can’t arbitrarily deport American citizens who fail to meet their idea of “American”, those immigrants and their offspring will segregate themselves away, cower in ghettos, minimize their profile so they don’t come into the crosshairs of some unhinged racist like Shawna Forde or her ilk.  (This was behind Jim Crow and Sunset Towns too.)

Their forefathers hated the Irish, the Poles, the Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, etc., who were in earlier waves of immigration.  Now the offspring will accept most Europeans (sorry, Asians, you’re still SOL), but draw the line with everyone else.  So in a way, they’re just carrying on a good, old-fashioned, American tradition.  Sad to say…

Comment #19: MikeEss  on  02/24  at  01:55 PM

I find it hard to believe that you would really think the mere enforcement of the U.S.’s immigration laws inherently constitutes “hate.” Do you believe we ought to become the only nation in the world without laws regulating immigration?

It isn’t “mere enforcement” that’s being complained about, it’s selective enforcement against certain visible ethnic groups. If you’re as informed a citizen as many immigrants I’ve met, you’ll understand how laws like Arizona’s ihre papiere, bitte legislation might go against the American ideal.

Now that we’ve compensated for your difficulties with reading comprehension, would you care to comment on the actual issue?

This sort of thing sends a signal to the Shawna Fordes of the world that their hatred is justified, and so are the things they do in the name of it, which in her case involved shooting a little girl in the head.

On the positive side, I’m heartened by the Indiana AG’s firing of the wannabe Quadaffi deputy attorney:

“Civility and courtesy toward all members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office,” the agency said in a prepared statement. “We respect individuals’ First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.”

It’s sorta sad that we now have to define higher standards for American public servants as not calling for the authorities to use live ammo on peaceful protesters, but I guess the Teabaggers need it laid out for them clearly.

Comment #20: Gracchus.  on  02/24  at  02:02 PM

Yep Gracch, I’m actually getting a bit proud of our Dem Hoosier lawmakers, who remain in Illinois (similar situation to WI) but the reTHUGlicans here, esp downstate are disgusting.

But the word came down from a reTHUGlican gov, who was Bush’s budget director, and who basically wants sot destroy the public sector so there’s more taxpayer cash to funnel to his corporate cronies.  This is the guy who sold the toll road and now wants to use eminent domain to condemn homes and farms so that he can turn the same over to corporations to build another road.  Using public power for a private taking - thanks New London.

Comment #21: phylosopher  on  02/24  at  02:31 PM

The principle may have a bit of validity - why not bills stating that the medical bills for gun victims, or wounded soldiers, or funeral expenses for troops killed overseas, or even unwanted babies from mothers unable to get abortions can be delivered to the Senator’s office?

Comment #22: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/24  at  02:46 PM

Once more with feeling: Don’t reference post number, reference the name of the poster. If a troll is scrubbed, people might get the impression that we’re calling out a regular when their post is bumped.

Besides, we’re more than our number. smile

Comment #23: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/24  at  03:21 PM

Well, it does lead to the rather funny part of referencing my own post.

Comment #24: StarStorm  on  02/24  at  04:01 PM

You’d think that for most rational folks, the objective of this bill would backfire.  It’s lot more difficult emotionally to send someone back to a life of fear and despair when they’re in your office with their terrified children, looking into your eyes, as opposed to being the faceless bogeyman in someone’s speech.

Then again, the people proposing this law have no problem blowing dog whistles at extremists who would shoot a sleeping child in the face.  And, as Amanda pointed out, regardless of how a rational person may act or think in response to this, the whistle has still been blown.  They are truly on a different plane.  Disgusting.

Comment #25: Secret Agent Norman  on  02/24  at  04:10 PM

yes, there is that. :D

Comment #26: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/24  at  04:10 PM

@#23: Besides, we’re more than our number.

Depends on who’s quoting you.

Comment #27: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/24  at  04:57 PM

Don’t reference post number, reference the name of the poster.

Or use a blockquote.  Heh.

Comment #28: keshmeshi  on  02/24  at  05:15 PM

References to this bill in the right wingosphere preface it with “This should get their attention.”  This is the “limousine liberal,” “ivory tower” slant—thinking that people who vote in favor of immigrants’ rights only do so because they’re ignorant and insulated, and need to have the truth shoved in their faces.

Comment #29: oldfeminist  on  02/24  at  06:57 PM

Using blockquote has the side effect of preserving troll spew after the original trollpost is gone, which may be fortunate or unfortunate depending on your POV.

Comment #30: kristin  on  02/24  at  07:26 PM

Bah, now I’m probably going to post twice in a row. Curse your crossposting, oldfeminist!

This is the “limousine liberal,” “ivory tower” slant—thinking that people who vote in favor of immigrants’ rights only do so because they’re ignorant and insulated, and need to have the truth shoved in their faces.

Well, yeah. Think about like ALL the welfare arguments you’ve ever had. There’s always somebody who’s like, what you have to understand is I *live* with these people, I see them every day, I *know* what they’re like. The implication being that the only reason we could possibly think it’s okay for people to get welfare is because we don’t know how awful people on welfare are.

Comment #31: kristin  on  02/24  at  07:52 PM

It is way fucked up to think that putting a human face to a political issue will DECREASE empathy.

Have rightwingers ever been this bad before? It seems like the assault on minorities and women is way way way worse with this new crop of republicans than it was after teh 2000 and 2002 victories. Was this what the 90s were like?

Comment #32: alysia  on  02/24  at  08:40 PM

A quick glance thru American History will reveal: yes, they’ve been this bad before, and worse.  We just kinda forgot.

Comment #33: Eric_RoM  on  02/24  at  08:44 PM

I know it has been historically much worse—this isn’t 60s levels of hate and unrest, it just seems like the Republicans of the naughts seemed so reprehensible and in retrospect they don’t seem AS bad as the fuckers in office now.

Comment #34: alysia  on  02/24  at  09:00 PM

@alysa: they were before and always are.  The media just covered it up for the past 30 years.

Comment #35: Punditus Maximus  on  02/24  at  10:52 PM

Sacundim at #8: The Guardian article is indeed wrong. As noted by the Christian Science Monitor, both murder victims were US citizens.

Comment #36: Witt  on  02/24  at  11:00 PM

She’s just a petty criminal and would-be thief, as well as a murderous bigot. She went there to rob those people because she thought they were drug dealers.

It will surprise absolutely no one to learn that the “Minutemen” etc. are singing the “Don’t judge us by one lone nut” tune.

Comment #37: Bitter Scribe  on  02/25  at  12:44 AM

I dont know how steady the claim that she shot them simply for being hispanic is. Gaxiola sounds like a hispanic name and he was one of the shooters. From what I’ve gathered from the Huffington Post it was more about money. I think they knew these people did drug selling/smuggling and felt entitled to the profits to fund their extremist organization. I would chaulk it up more to xenophobia than explicit racism, though I do think that being latino has been stereotyped in their minds as instant illegal immigrants-so that part seems pretty racist. The dehumanization of the little 9 year old is barbaric. However, in spite of their extremism I dont think that one should instantly make the rash connection that being opposed to illegal immigration and wanting a border = racist. I want one because having to pay $3000 to cross a desert and risking ones life, having a likely chance of being raped, and working some shit job that Americans dont want to do anymore is wrong. These people are desperate and deserve to have their country listen to them. I think that there should be some sort of organization that helps them in their native land because having an open border to act as a pressure valve for these peoples desperation doesnt help anyone. I mean are they always supposed to stay desperate and poor to do our shitty jobs?

Comment #38: BeanS  on  02/25  at  02:13 AM

“These people are desperate and deserve to have their country listen to them. I think that there should be some sort of organization that helps them in their native land because having an open border to act as a pressure valve for these peoples desperation doesnt help anyone.”

The most important difference between Mexico and the US is that Mexico is further along in the process of creating and (in their case) maintaining an oligarchy of wealthy who effectively own and control everything.  We’re headed in the same direction.

The wealthy in Mexico need some proles to leave for the US to reduce the likelihood of a French-style revolution.  Many of the wealthy here depend on Mexican proles to create more wealth.  The system, broken as it is, serves both the wealthy here and the wealthy there, which is partly why the problems never get solved.

“I mean are they always supposed to stay desperate and poor to do our shitty jobs?”

When it serves the purposes of each country’s respective oligarchies, yes, that’s exactly what’s needed. 

You don’t honestly believe that some desperately poor Mexicans are just looking for a vacation in el norte, do you?  The decision to cross the border is not taken lightly.  Desperate people resort to desperate action to keep themselves and their families alive. 

If the economic and political situations were reversed, you can bet there would be desperate Americans crossing the border into Mexico to keep themselves and their families alive.  It’s the kind of thing that actual, living, breathing human beings have done throughout the ages.  Welcome to the human condition…

Comment #39: MikeEss  on  02/25  at  10:25 AM

@BeanS- “From what I’ve gathered from the Huffington Post it was more about money. I think they knew these people did drug selling/smuggling and felt entitled to the profits to fund their extremist organization.”

Were they involved in drug smuggling? My understanding is that there were no drugs in the house, and Forde and company just assumed they were running drugs because they just sort of assumed everyone of Hispanic ancestry does.

Comment #40: wednesdayaddams  on  02/25  at  11:10 AM

The point really seemed to be that the killers “knew” these people did drug selling/smuggling, not that their victems actually did any such thing to me.  The 9 yo certainly didn’t.

Comment #41: helen w. h.  on  02/25  at  02:21 PM

I was loading up the internet on my phone the other day, and it pops some news articles up before I get to go anywhere (I can’t set the home page).  It mentioned that they guy that posted the South Park creator’s addresses on the internet got 25 years in prison for doing so.  Nothing happened to the South Park creator’s homes.

Where’s the twenty-five years for the guys who put Dr Tiller’s address up?  Or for putting up the address of the SCHIP family mentioned by the Pres?

The double-standard here pisses me off.  But maybe now that the Feds have precedent, they can do this to the christian terrorists.

Comment #42: Crissa  on  02/25  at  06:39 PM

Holy crap:  http://www.justiceforshawnaforde.com/ “Shawna has now been TORTURED in Coercive Solitary Confinement for 563 Days!”  “Minutewoman Shawna Forde has been unjustly accused of murders done by a drug cartel; she is innocent.”

Comment #43: Crissa  on  02/25  at  06:49 PM

Wow crissa, I’ll check that up. That sounds like a really excellent point. I bet they never want to touch it because the issue is seen as controversial-protecting womens bodily autonomy and all. I’m reading more about the issue outside of some of the more cliche points (cliche as in weve all heard it and we need more sophisticated arguments that also elaborate in more detail) from some books I’ve recently bought.

Comment #44: BeanS  on  02/25  at  07:16 PM

mikeess,
You dont actually believe after I wrote that they pay $3000 US dollars and have to cross a desert-and if youre a woman a higher than 50% chance you’ll be raped that I even remotely thought it was a nice vacation to el norte do you? I once visited this place in Denver Co called El Centro that deals with illegal immigrant issues. I talked (via a translator) with some of them and they described worker abuse and many of them dont even want to be here. I just think if its anyone that should address this issue it should be liberals. I just think if we were to take it seriously we’d see the value in a border and probably come to some balanced view that we can have a border and also do something for them there. I think we’d have to address how to address their problems (which could be difficult) both economically and socially and figure out a way of doing our shitty jobs such as by using machines. Perhaps if we have a sort of Peace Corp or something? The bureaurcratic elements of addressing their problems would be very difficult I’d imagine since theyre so polluted by mafias and corrupt officials (which is why I think an outsider could help) but perhaps the everyday things that induce these people to cross a desert to come here like food, shelter, jobs, ect? I remember the translator told us that U.S. corporations wreck their shanty homes and then they have no where to go and so to make money they cross the border. Again this is why I think liberals would address it better than conservatives who view it in a very childish black and white perspective. Because the system as it is isnt working and is exploitive and only ends up causing more problems. I just never see any liberals calling for a border which I think we need. I think Republicans/Right seriously see this through a xenophobic lens as well as through an extremist interpretation of whats going on with these people. I think they see them as invaders (?) rather than desperate people. I agree that if America was in the same straights that Mexico is in I think all these “Minutemen” types would be hastily crossing the border themselves. Though I dont think Mexico would hesitate to construct a border if that were the case.

Comment #45: BeanS  on  02/25  at  07:31 PM

The wealthy in Mexico need some proles to leave for the US to reduce the likelihood of a French-style revolution.

If I remember my history correctly, Mexico has had plenty of those already.

The political party that dominated Mexico until very recently is the Institutional Revolutionary Party. How can a revolution be institutional? Aren’t revolutions all about tearing down institutions? Or does it mean that there have been so many revolutions in Mexico that the very state of revolution has become an institution?

It makes my head hurt. This is why I don’t watch anything on Univision except soccer matches.

Comment #46: Bitter Scribe  on  02/25  at  11:43 PM

The type of violent rhetoric the corporatists are using these days would get most people thrown in prison for inciting violence (and perhaps for domestic terrorism). And when this Brownshirt-esque thuggery is taken along with Bush/Obama domestic surveillance and secrecy policies, it worries me that this country is slipping closer to outright fascism.

Comment #47: Jesse R. Taylor  on  02/26  at  06:29 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.