I just perused the House Republicans' long-awaited "statement of principles" about immigration. As I (and most immigrant advocates) expected, it's a mixed bag at best. The good news is that there is now clearly a bipartisan consensus for enacting the provisions of the DREAM Act; that wasn't the case as recently as December of 2010, when Congress made the most recent attempt to pass the Act. The middling news is that the GOP is, for the most part, willing to offer legal status to the millions of non-DREAM undocumented immigrants, but not citizenship. This particular "principle" seems to have already unleashed a debate among immigrant advocates that will not be particularly helpful. Some feel that President Obama and the Democrats should just accept it and move on, while others (rightly) point out that it would effectively create people without a country. My take: accept it, and file lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. In the meantime, the undocumented can get their green cards and finally get on with their lives.
However, now I come to the really, truly awful bad news that should be scaring everyone. That would be the "principles" requiring a biometric exit-entry system and electronic verification of work authorization for all employees.
Frankly, in light of all of the concerns that have been raised about the NSA, drones, and other forms of government "snoopervising" of Americans, it astonishes me that Republicans can propose those particular "principals" with a straight political face. I am assuming that the argument to be made in their favor is that this will only affect immigrants, and not "real Americans," meaning that so-called "real Americans" need not worry about this expansion of snoopervising.
Excuse me, but wasn't this the rationale used to help enact the PATRIOT Act, the single most anti-civil libertarian law in modern times? It wouldn't apply to good, honest, hardworking Americans. Only to those nasty, evildoing terrorists who can be anywhere and everywhere. Which, in turn, has meant that it has been applied to good, honest, hardworking Americans. Because you just never know, right? This is why the PATRIOT Act is the Bill of Rights version of burning the village in order to save it.
And that is why it's also important to keep in mind something else Republicans supposedly favor: the rule of law. That, after all, is the rationale behind their enforcement-heavy approach to the whole issue. Everyone must be treated the same under the law. Which, in turn, means that once you allow warrantless electronic invasions of the privacy of travelers and employers, the requirement that everyone must be treated the same will mean even more warrantless invasions of everyone's privacy. Because you just never know who could be harboring the last undocumented person in the U.S.. It could be a housekeeper, or a gardener, or a teacher, or a police officer, or even your roommate or spouse. Right? Doesn't that make sense? There will now be a ten-second pause, to give you a chance to roll your eyes.
I am convinced that these "principles" are in fact the proverbial camel's nose under the tent when it comes to the police state some members of the Republican Party would like to create. They're more than willing to go a little easy on 11 million, if it provides a path to greater control over all 300 million plus of us. To them, this is not about immigration. It is first and foremost about control--by them, over the rest of us.
Whether the issue is immigration, or anything else, and whether the advocate is a Republican or anything else, beware the argument that a questionable law or restriction will never be applied to you. History is replete with examples of how "someone else" sooner or later becomes you and me. There are ways to enforce our immigration laws that do not involve plugging all of us into the Matrix. And if we want to continue to be not only a nation of immigrants, but also a free people, we'd better start rallying around those ways, and be wary of wolves in the clothing of "principles."
No comments:
Post a Comment