| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| anepalikt | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 09:48 AM
We have had numerous discussions here on sajha about the issues of citizenship, immigration and "anchor babies." As I am just starting to read this article in Front Page magazine the link to which someone sent me a week ago. Thought I'd post the URL here for others to read. Let me know what you think. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2869 |
| paramendra | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 12:17 PM
Anepalikt: Thanks for bringing this racist article to my attention. I posted a comment there first: "Being an American used to be understood to have a real and substantial significance, as well it ought to, given the moral obligations one has as the citizen of a democracy. Now it has become a parody of the welfare state: the ultimate handout." This article is the voice of someone concerned of 200,000 children born into an ocean of 260 million Americans. Shame on you. The author comes from a school of thought that sees American democracy not as a human achievement, but a western achievement. Non-westerners need to be kept at bay. The anti-welfare-moms angst is barely beneath the surface. Well, more American-borns are on the rolls than the foreigners. And corporate welfare is a few hundred times larger than welfare for those moms. Don't even pretend this article is about saving taxpayers' hard-earned income. Beware, the whiteness might get diluted! |
| anepalikt | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 04:56 PM
Paramendra: Interesting to hear you call it a racist article! Yeah, it is conservative, but why is conservative automatically equated to racist or xenophobic? I would be interested to hear more on why you say "the author comes from a school of thought that sees American democracy not as a human achievement, but a western achievement. Non-westerners need to be kept at bay. The anti-welfare-moms angst is barely beneath the surface. Well, more American-borns are on the rolls than the foreigners. And corporate welfare is a few hundred times larger than welfare for those moms. Don't even pretend this article is about saving taxpayers' hard-earned income." There are a lot of "American-borns" who are on the dole (I think you meant dole), but that was one of the points of the writer that "American-born" should not necessarily mean "citizen". I was very intrigued by this discussion of what constitutes a "citizen". I am irked when I read - "The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)). Because I was like what the hell does "direct and immediate allegiance" mean anyhow. And who is to judge that? And still am not happy with that assertion because it leaves unanswered how the writer interprets "direct and immediate allegiance". Yet in terms of what the writer says: "Being an American used to be understood to have a real and substantial significance, as well it ought to, given the moral obligations one has as the citizen of a democracy." I agree. Yeah there might be "only" 200,000 babies born here in this country of "alien" parents compared to the 280 million citizens, but that is hardly the point. People are taking advantage of a loophole in the system which might be a result of a misinterpretation of the original intent of the law as articulated in the Fourteenth Amendment. People do this kind of questioning all the time whether they are talking about the right to bear arms or free speech. Why not citizenship? America is one of the only countries where birth means citizenship. I think that in itself poses certain questions. What does it mean to be a citizen? What if you are born here but raised elsewhere. People always talk about rights. What about responsibilities of a citizen? There are certain stages that PR have to go through to apply for naturalization. That does not seem to apply to people born in the states, but those have never lived here. Why not? How come only foreign-borns have to prove that they have allegiance? I have not made up my mind totally this way or that. But I would be interested to hear more from people rather than a blanket condemnation. |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 05:52 PM
I'm no lawyer, but even to my un-legal brain, that article gives a historically and undoubtedly legally suspect view that does NOT reflect the experience of almost ALL Americans. (Boy, would I love to pass it on to some law professor types ... I'm sure they'd hit the roof.) Anyway, here's my take. If there was no well-understood birthright to citizenship, how in the world did the children and grandchildren of races who were once despised--Italians, Irish, Poles, Greeks, Lebanese, Chinese--ever become citizens? In the 19th century, the Anglo-Americans didn't much care for the new arrivals. The Irish were thought of as--in our modern terms--substance abusing, lazy, violent, and genetically at the absolute bottom of the "bell curve." But 19th century Americans DID grant citizenship to children born on this soil. Even the Irish and the so-called "non-whites," like (believe it or not) the Italians and Greeks. That's right. They weren't considered to be the same race as Anglo-Americans. But their children got citizenship when they were born on this soil. And they got it, and KEPT it, regardless of whether they could be trusted to have some deep moral allegiance to the US. Mr. Locke's romantic view of the past notwithstanding, earlier Americans did NOT trust foreign-born Americans to be absolutely loyal, or how would the concept of a "Fifth Column" have arisen? How would Japanese-Americans have been rounded up in WWII? Yet they were not stripped of their citizenship, because that, at least, was their birthright. And now that I'm at it, you know what? Unlike Mr. Locke and his ilk, I don't care that some people want so badly to get citizenship that they come here when they're pregnant. A hundred years ago, there were no visa quotas, and anyone who could afford the boat passage could come. That's how most people's ancestors got here. Maybe not Mr. Locke's, but Joseph Lieberman's and Rudy Guiliani's and Bill O'Reilly's and Connie Chung's and so ad infinitum. That's why there are 280 million Americans. I bet Mr. Locke's spiritual ancestors complained that all those lazy Jews and Italians and Irish and Chinese were just coming over to steal the jobs of "real" Americans, and eee gads! They sometimes came over pregnant! "Give us the wretched refuse of your teeming shores." There's no post script on the Statue of Liberty that says, "Unless they go on Welfare," or "Unless they ever have bad thoughts about America," or "Unless they bow to Mecca," or "Unless they sneak in illegally," or "Unless Mom wasn't American." As for welfare. Yes, I think loopholes should be closed. But I LIKE welfare. That's why I pay my taxes. Because if I ever need it, god forbid, I want that social safety net. No, I don't want to support bums and terrorists, but welfare is part of the decency of this nation. Just as the birthright of citizenship is. |
| Euta Thita | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 06:11 PM
14th amendment's loophole allows illegal immigrants, who are breaking the law by coming to the US without proper documents, another shot at getting that much coveted green card without following proper procedures. I know a man who -- although he has legal status now -- was staying here illegally without proper documents, and has an American born kid. Since the son will be a citizen when he hits 18 --and he will be a citizen in a couple of years-- the father now is pretty much relaxed, because due to him exploiting this loophole, he too will have a shot at becoming a US citizen. Now, what bugs me is this: people who illegally work in the US have as much a chance to become legal citizens as people who wait decades by following proper procedures. Is this really fair for right-minded folks? I don't think so. My parents and I sacrificed so much to get to the postion we are at now, and it angers me to think that people who break the law have as much, or better shot at leading an easier life --since they usually come here when they are young and seldom have the desire to go back -- thanks to the government's indifferent attitude. On top of that, even when they are working as janitors they save more because they don't pay taxes, and because they usually live in groups in apartments. And by no means am I implying that I am against immigration, for on the contrary, I do believe that USA has benefited a lot because of its fairly lenient immigration policies. After all, we do attract brilliant individuals from all around the globe. Also, I don't need to be reminded of my "naturalized citizen" status, if anyone has that in mind. |
| anepalikt | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 08:16 PM
"Give us the wretched refuse of your teeming shores." That got me if nothing else, Sally! :) How can one not be moved! But still. Firstly, when I hear "anchor babies" (yes, a despicable term in itself) I think not of the "illegal" undocumented people, but the privileged elite. I think it is the descendants of the "wretched refuse" that give America its heart and its people the empathy for the under-served and oppressed on the world. There was no postscript to that great line! Yes. But when it is only the rich and the privileged who can afford citizenship, birthright citizenship does become a mockery. When the poor ARE able to take advantage of that privilege, they have come having sold house and home, usually like those Chinese boat people, stuffed in cargo containers, and indentured for life paying off that dalal. I think America AND the world has changed. Can America afford to continue to expand and grow the way it does? I ask this not with the perspective that the "foreigners/illegals" might take the jobs of the natives. I am well aware that the idea of scarcity has been used over and over to victimize and disenfranchise minorities. I ask the question "can America afford to continue to expand and grow the way it does" in the sense "Is it responsible?" Remember even those "wretched" who come here become "Americans" who upon arrival start consuming equal to 5 others in their home country. How responsible is that? Besides, I truly believe that it is not through citizenship and only by giving refuge to the "wretched" of the world that that America can serve the world's poor who seek opportunity and freedom. Rather most impact can be made through just global policies and investments that make opportunities for people in their own countries. |
| anepalikt | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 08:16 PM
Secondly, I agree with you that though the writer gives the example of American Indians and children of foreign diplomats, by virtue of conveniently "forgetting" and failing to mention all the peoples and populations who are American because of birthright citizenship, the writer shows his bias. Yet, I think there is more to discuss about citizenship. And not necessarily about American citizenship alone. Citizenship not in the context of birthright versus say naturalized, but the idea of allegiance and reciprocity of relationship between the nation and its citizen. For example, Nepal fails its female Nepali citizens. There is no question about that. But allegiance and loyalty might be too much of a slippery slope. Because as much as I believe that the relationship between a nation and its citizen should be based on reciprocity of loyalty and allegiance, I am not convinced that a nonbiased definition is easily reached. However, I think it is an important question to consider especially in America in this climate, when the courts are deliberating over the fates of individuals who have intended to harm the nation. How do their fates change whether they are treated as citizens or non-citizens? I am still trying to figure that one out. I am also still interested in the distinctions made between citizens who are naturalized versus who have obtained citizenship through birth. Like running for office or citizenship being stripped because of crime. Anyway… |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 09:12 PM
When I think of "anchor babies," I think of illegal Mexicans who, supposedly, come across the border to have babies. Not elites cheating the system. The bit about pregnant Asians on tourist visas is thrown out by the anti-immigration spokesman in the article as a kind of smoke screen, I think, to keep him from seeming anti-hispanic. Pregnant Koreans aren't coming on tourist visas to live in housing projects on the backs of the American taxpayers. I doubt anyone on Locke's side of the barbed-wire fence would be so worried if they perceived immigrants as, say, pregnant Thai accountants, or the well-educated buharis of Nepali hotel owners. Yes, it IS pathetic that the elite sail through the visa offices and end up with citizenship, if that's their ultimate goal, far easier than anyone else. The poor? Heck, in Nepal, forget the middle class, too! A few get through, on scholarships or the Diversity Lottery. But anyone who's sat at the Embassy in Kathmandu and watched perfectly qualified kids with great TOEFLs and thousands of dollars in the bank get turned down for not having enough funds to pay for some community college knows what's at the bottom line. The Diversity Lottery is an attempt to balance the ledger, I guess. But even that's unfair from the perspective of Nepal. You need a high-school degree--which means an Intermediate--to qualify. Not much diversity, from a country where almost nobody gets that far in their education. Of course, to put things in perspective, I suppose most of the ancestors of today's Americans sold everything they had to get on that boat. Many of them were joining relatives who were already here, and had scrimped and saved for years to bring them. Not too different, really, is it? Many of the first wave of immigrants in the 17th century even came over as indentured servants--sacrificing their freedom for seven years to pay the boat fare. It wasn't too easy on the pocketbook to get here then, either! I agree that both America and the world has changed, though, and so my analogies are imperfect. The worst thing, I think, is that today's system actually ENCOURAGES cheating, because you've either got to be a tourist, a student, or an immigrant. No in-between for the honest but uncertain. The ones who want to do what foreigners in the US usually want to do, at least at first: make some money and return home to live the good life. I'd like to see a "guest worker" visa that allows people to work for a certain number of years, provided that they return home. There used to be such a program of the 1960s. There's a beautiful, haunting song about that program by one of the '60s folkies--I must track it down sometime--that has lines like "working for my mother/my sister and my brother." Truly the lament of the remittance worker. A hard life then, as it is now, but at least those '60s "guest workers" were legal. I believe something of the sort is actually being tried under NAFTA, but only for Mexicans. |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 10:28 PM
Found the song I was thinking about. It's "Bracero," by Phil Ochs. Some of the lyrics ... Come bring your hungry bodies To the golden fields of plenty From a peso to a penny Bracero Come labor for your mother For your father and your brother For your sisters and your lover Bracero Come sing about tomorrow With a jingle of the dollars And forget your crooked collar Bracero Oh, welcome to California Where the friendly farmers Will take care of you And the local men are lazy And they make too much of trouble Besides we'd have to pay them double Bracero Ah, but if you feel you're fallin' If you find the pace is killing There are others who are willing Bracero |
| sally | Posted
on 14-Sep-02 10:46 PM
Btw I just realized that some people might take these lyrics straight. Ochs is actually condemning the treatment and hard life of migrant laborers. There's a lot of irony between the lines. My own perspective is different from Ochs'. Writing at a particular time in history, he was looking at the life of a remittance worker as painful and difficult, and thus saw the "bracero" program as exploitation. Coming at this a couple decades later, I see the life of a remittance worker as painful and difficult, but think a "bracero" program would mean less exploitation, and less dishonesty, than what we have today. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 15-Sep-02 01:34 PM
Aneplikt an Sally have thrown in interesting perspectives. Many questions have been raised. And I am glad this thread adds to the diversity at Kurakani. Just because this is a Nepali site does not mean, the topics have to be all "imported" from Nepal. Girija, Maoists. Et al. (1) For a country of immigrants, why should non Europeans have a harder time than Europeans historically did? (2) About the idea of spreading the prosperity rather than inviting everyone to the same table, well, America needs to take the lead. Americans of Asian, African and Latin American backgrounds need to take the lead, politically and otherwise. (3) Conservative and racist are not synonyms. But then it was considered to be "conservative" once to be for segregation. The elder Bush voted against voting rights for blacks as a congressperson in the 60s! Is that a racist record? Of course, yes. Those for who xenophobia is ideology and for whom people from the Global South are inferiors -- they have to be labelled as racits. For what they are. Sally, I am particularly impressed with your clear stance for the downtrodden. The voiceless. The Japanese Empire drops a bomb at Pearl Harbor. The U.S. government rounds up the Japanese Americans. That act has now been officially described as a racist act. Well, Al Qaeda attacks. But that ought not translate into a systematic harassment of Arab Americans either. I am suspicious of the anti-immigration crowd. Where the American economy beats the Japanese economy is it has this mild inflow of immigrants on a regular basis. That keeps the fires stoked. Makes a ton of economic sense. America is an idea to which the entire humanity can lay claim. |