The Bush Administration and the GOP seem to have hit upon a novel “Retro” strategy for curbing immigration and suppressing the influx of migrants into the United States. The approach of vigilant border patrols supported by armed vigilante “Minutemen” militias does not seem to have yielded results. Talking about sanctioning employers for hiring illegal immigrants and undocumented workers, but not actually prosecuting them, has failed. This new approach is based upon a reverse psychology theory. By making the US unattractive enough, these immigrants will not even desire to come here, and the immigration problem will be remedied.
One visible step is to build a 700 mile wall along the border, like the Chinese did to repel the invading Huns, or like the Germans did to establish a barrier between East and West Germany. The Berlin wall was much smaller than the proposed US barrier, but we like to do things in a big way. Israel also has constructed a barrier wall to seal off Palestinian inhabited sectors from areas claimed by Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that at least part of that wall was illegal, but such technicalities have apparently not deterred the Israeli government from proceeding with the overall strategy. Such walls are important and imposing symbols of government control and restrictions of movement. They denote a closed off society that is unwelcoming of diverse ethnic and religious adherents and is intolerant of dissent. Any person seeking to come to this country would have to think twice whether this is the type of environment and lifestyle they truly seek.
The next step in the new strategy is to strip away from the citizenry and inhabitants certain rights that were previously viewed in the US, and throughout the world, as basic tenets of a “free nation.” Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, such as domestic wiretapping without court approval, was previously thought to be a Constitutional protection. However, the Bush Administration has dispensed with it. Another fundament of liberty was considered to be the right to be free from arrest or imprisonment without at least the right to challenge the basis for the detention. This principle of habeas corpus predates the Constitution and is embodied in the Magna Carta. The Bush Administration has adopted a number of measures which have stripped away this liberty as well. US citizens theoretically still have the right of habeas corpus that is denied non-citizens, but the procedures adopted do not even require that a detainee be permitted to prove US citizenship or obtain access to a lawyer. All the government has to do is arrest a person and hold them indefinitely without charging them. In such cases, any rights to counsel, to challenge detention or to confront accusers are denied. Anyone trying to immigrate to the US because of an oppressive regime that permits “disappearances” of persons by government agents and indefinite detention without communication with family or coming to America.
In addition, someone imprisoned by the American government, with or without justification, may be subjected to “aggressive interrogation” under the policies of the Bush Administration. The International community, the Geneva Conventions and human rights organizations all deem such treatment to be illegal “torture.” The Bush Administration believes the semantic difference is important, although someone being “water boarded” may not grasp the subtlety and nuance. The Bush objective is to make the risks of false imprisonment in the US like any other authoritarian or totalitarian country. These risks are not just speculative, as there are multiple case histories of abduction, “extraordinary rendition” and torture in "client" or accomplice states where torture is common practice or in secret US prisons abroad. Add to this the experiences disclosed regarding US prison facilities in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and the message is pretty clear.
As an embellishing touch, the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have created a permeating and palpable climate of fear and distrust that casts a shadow over the entire country. There is almost no place in the country where one can avoid being confronted by some message or procedure that restricts behavior or brings to one’s consciousness the admonition that some purported risk of “terrorism” is in play. The constant drumbeat of government generated media announcements supports this campaign. The inconveniences, the delays and the confusion created by airport security personnel and procedures could make the most patient person crabby. But a person can be arrested for merely making a statement that is critical of the process or experience. Historically, this was an environment indicative of a “police state.” The Bush Administration would never be so candid as to label the procedures that accurately or with such a negative connotation. Marketing or spin does not, however, diminish the pervasiveness and impact of the environment and the dynamic.
The GOP has supported this campaign by fostering attitudes of racial and religious hostility and bigotry. The term “illegal immigrants” has become “code” for Mexican and Latino immigrants. Conservative campaigns and rhetoric talk about the “invasion” by such illegal immigrants and the “burden” that they place on social systems. No such concerns are expressed about Whites who cross the US/Canadian border and stay in this country illegally. The GOP and the White House has declared the conflict against Muslims, who in their view are explicitly or implicitly presumed to all be suspected “terrorists,” to be a “struggle for the future of civilization.” Coming from the President and the governing authority, such statements are advocacy for bigotry and religious intolerance. Blind adherents to the GOP “party line” are likely to ignore all the hard evidence in the world that Islam is as old as Christianity and no threat to civilization or to US citizens. As with Christianity and any other religion, there are extremists who attempt to use religion as a rallying point for a distorted vision or doctrine to excuse or justify violence. They do not, however, represent the mainstream tenets of the religion. In any event, these rhetorical attacks advance a divisive and suspicious atmosphere that is hostile to people not of White ethnic or Judeo-Christian backgrounds.
The sum of these measures appears designed to project an image of America as a place that is not welcoming and not tolerant of immigrants. Our activities are continually monitored, free speech is limited in public places, one can be spied upon and arrested without notice or the ability to challenge such treatment and detention can mean indefinite imprisonment and possible torture. These characteristics may or may not be as daunting as the experience the prospective immigrant has experienced in their country of origin, but they tend to make the US a much less attractive place to migrate to in order to improve the quality of one’s life. By projecting such images, the “Retro” strategy is to deter foreigners from attempting to enter the US or to stay long if they do come here.
Perhaps national elections will serve as a referendum on whether Americans consider this “Retro” America, and what our society is becoming, a remedy that is worse than the problem to be addressed. If they do feel the cure worse than the disease, the challenge will be to retrieve the America most citizens have believed in and the environment that was once respected and admired by the rest of the world, and considered a beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment