The
CNN Crusade Against Mexicans
By Richard W. Crockett
Lou
Dobbs of CNN revealed the other day that his wife is Mexican, as though that
fact inoculates him against a charge of nativism, or worse, racism in his
campaign against the Mexicans who come into this country by whatever
means. You know, that sounds a
little like a claim that it is ok for Caucasian Americans to use the ÒNÓ word
because Òsome of my best friends are black.Ó The implication is that, Òthey
know I really donÕt mean it.Ó But
what seems to come across by this revelation is the idea that his wife is ok,
because sheÕs not like all those other people who speak that language that we
overhear in public places, but cannot understand, and where our paranoia tells
us that it is a conversation about us.
In short, much of the anti immigration fever in this country is a
product of nativism at best, ironically against a native people, and racism at
worst. However, we do not like to
think of it that way. Instead, we
emphasize as does Lou Dobbs, their illegal status. These immigrants are illegal, is the claim.
One
of the Ôgreatest dilemmas for both sides in this debate is the Òanchor
baby.Ó Mexican parents who have
entered the United States illegally, and who become parents of children born in
the United States have children who are naturally born American citizens. The fact of these childrenÕs legal
status in the United States has made it problematic to deport Mexican parents
for their illegal entry, because in so doing the United States must ÒdeportÓ an American citizen, the
infant child—the Òanchor baby.Ó Over the years, many an illegal has not
been deported because of a reluctance to deport an American citizen, the legal
child of illegal aliens. The other horn of the dilemma is that if the child is
not ÒdeportedÓ with his illegal parents, he is being separated from his parents
at the time of their deportation and may have to become a ward of the
state. .
But
the young and vulnerable child should not be required to leave his native
country—the country of his birth.
But advocates of deportation have become more brazen. Bill Tucker of CNN
in discussing this issue had the cheek to say, Òchildren who are citizens are
not required to leave the country; we let them leave the country with their parents.Ó
Now think about this: a completely dependent infant child is being deprived of
something that is legally his—and something that we, by the way, prize as
one of the most precious gifts one can have—birth as an American citizen. Shipped back to Mexico, this infant
will not grow up learning English as his native tongue, a skill that the
anti-Mexican view insist upon as a condition of residence here, although it may
not be enforceable. If
deporting legal American citizens because they have Mexican parents is not
racist, I can think of no other explanation for it.
A
recent response to the immigration controversy by supporters of the immigrants
from Mexico is something called Òthe new sanctuary movement.Ó In years gone by, it was widespread
practice that persons fleeing from authority could Òtake sanctuaryÓ in a
church. It was believed that the
church was Òoff limitsÓ so to speak for the pursuers of those taking sanctuary,
and once those in flight had found refuge in a church they were ÒsafeÓ from capture
and would be left alone. The new
sanctuary movement argues that, Òno one is illegal in the eyes of God.Ó
Further, they argue that the Òlaw of God that says there are no borders, is the
law that we are required to follow.Ó
This argument is made calling upon the notion of a Òhigher lawÓ that is
above the laws of man, a view of this perspective which says that it is the law
of God. It derives from the
philosophy that is at the foundation of the Declaration of Independence, the
Natural Rights Philosophy.
Proponents have been driven to this perspective through recognition that
U.S. law does not recognize sanctuary in a church. If man-made law doesnÕt work
for you, it is time to resort to something else. This perspective was at the core of the civil rights
movement and is associated with the American Revolution and much of the
anti-slavery movement.
Kitty
Pilgrim of CNN, sitting in for Lou Dobbs, introduced a discussion of this
subject as Òthe church interfering in the debate over illegal aliens.Ó She further
inquired if this activity does not go against separation of church and
state. The reference is mainly to
the Catholic Church, who may see alliance with the immigrants from Mexico who
possesses a predominantly Catholic religious background, as not only a
compassionate and moral thing to do, but also an opportunity to fill the pews
at mass. The Catholic Church has
been associated with this natural law tradition since the days of St. Augustine
and Thomas Aquinas. The problem
for the anti-immigration crowd is that to engage in a debate is not a violation
of church and state separation. It
is the exercise of First Amendment rights in behalf of an issue. It is speech and symbolic speech. It is in fact a response to a debate
which has been shaped by a CNN crusade at the five oÕclock hour every weekday
evening by Lou Dobbs. The
anti-Mexican harangue has been ongoing for more than a year, at the least. For CNN to whine that their antagonists
dare to find allies and respond to the CNN monolog is somehow unfair, is itself
dumbfounding to the listener.
5/10/07