Eviscerating Immigrant=Criminal Logic
Climate of hate means immigrant rights organizations should commit to excluding punitive policies in any reform proposal
This post was inspired by another post by my friend, Alisa Valdez, who uses the MSM's coverage of the Markoff "Craig'sList Killer" case to draw our attention to how twisted -and dangerous-the values of the media ecology we inhabit have become. Reading Alisa's tight analysis alongside reports of that the racist killers of immigrant Luis Ramirez were declared innocent (and of course, the daily bread of anti-immigrant, anti-Latino hate found on radios, TV's and websites everywhere the daily bread of anti-immigrant, anti-Latino hate found on radios, TV's and websites everywhere), triggered concerns made even clearer during a recent visit to Europe to cover the UN conference on racism. More specifically, Alisa's piece provided me with the spark to say something I've been mulling for while: the dangerous even murderous anti-migrant climate requires that immigrant advocates commit not to support any "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" (CIR) proposal containing punitive immigration policies.
Published on LatinoLA: May 6, 2009
The piece below floats the seemingly uncontroversial idea of a petition asking immigrant rights orgs-and their leaders- to commit to excluding, not supporting any and all punitive policies in any "comprehensive immigration reform." Seems pretty obvious, but the absence of such accountability allows the noxious policies-and the immigrant=criminal logic undergirding them- to pass with the apparent support of that segment of the "immigrant rights movement" that can afford media flaks, PR spinsters, bloggers and others allowing them to speak for the entire immigrant rights movement. Hopefully, this is non-controversial, but let's put it to a test.
Neither aggressive, nor hostile, such a petition simply commits its signatories to excluding policies that, in such a radically hateful climate, enable further hatred, terror and death in immigrant communities. how could anyone purporting to be a defender of immigrants not agree to something so basic?
I encourage any comments, suggestions or disagreements those of you reading this might have. Gracias, R
Here's the response to Alisa's piece:
That a crazed murderer would be described with such fawning language while maids, gardeners and immigrants and other Latinos are described in the harshest, most hateful language speaks powerfully to how perverted the "values" of this decadent "civilization" have become. Reinforces a theory I have about how we've moved beyond the rather stale notion that legalization or increases in the Latino vote will do anything to diminish the rise in hate towards Latinos.
Between radical demographic shifts (young, rapidly growing Latino population, aging, diminishing white population), editorial rooms chock full of old- and young- still mostly white "editors" who normalize lethal logics and the companies that capitalize and profit from "news"programs, talk shows premised on promoting Darwinian racial ideologies, what we have is the possible institutionalization of perpetual race war targeting Latinos, especially immigrant Latinos, who are suffering the brunt of hatred, death and devastation.
In such a lethally charged climate, at such a decadent moment in the history of this country, we need to raise the cost of promoting or enabling the radical racial logic of the newsrooms described so cogently by Alisa. This is why I propose, for example, that we start eviscerating any trace of the racially charged immigrant=criminal logic in our own "community." We can start addressing this by developing and circulating a petition or some document demanding that any "immigrant rights organization" commit itself to excluding any and all punitive immigration proposals they might advocate in the name of "legalizing the 12 million" or whatever spin people come up with in their efforts to legitimize the now deadly immorality known in legislative circles as a "tradeoff" (legalization in exchange for more punitive policy). We can then extend the commitment to the Hispanic Caucus and other members of Congress and move forward into the editorial rooms with greater force and unity of purpose.
As the possibility of "comprehensive immigration reform" rears its head again, we might want to consider the possibility that, in allowing or even supporting punitive policies, we in the "immigrant rights movement" are unconsciously accepting the logic of criminality by allowing or supporting laws premised on now extremely lethal notions of immigrant criminality manufactured in hate groups, "think tanks" and the news rooms Alisa aptly describes. Make no mistake, in times when hating immigrants is proven to yield daily profits for news organizations and their advertisers, times when you can kill an immigrant and go scott free (or even hailed as heroes as in the gross distortion that is the Compean case), "tradeoffs" mean we are willing to accept logic that kills, the same logic of the racists disguised as editors use. I also think that the institutions-news orgs, hate groups, political parties, including Democrats- invested and investing in this radical, deadly turn deserve the same treatment we used to give those who enabled the slaughter of innocents in El Salvador: pouring colored red liquid symbolizing the blood of the dead and maimed on their offices-or even their suits and dresses. Things, have, I believe, reached that point of urgency-but the "news" will not report it or, if they do, they'll do so in the most banal terms possible. Such are the rotten fruits of decadent "civilization."
Thanks again for your work on this, Alisa. Good writing should spark discussion and debate and you succeeded.
Email the author