Three Hundred Thousand Expected for Immigration March. Wow.
The Tribune headline blares that the Police are “bracing” for the May 1st march for immigrant rights. Read two paragraphs in, however, and you will find that “Deputy Supt. Charles Williams said police anticipate many of the immigrant groups to be peaceful and stressed that officers will be in “soft uniforms” rather than black riot gear.”
The switch to “soft uniforms” is symbolically equivalent to the tactic of soldiers switching from Kevlar helmets to floppy boonie hats while on patrol in Iraq (well, they used to do that, anyways) and is in stark contrast to the stormtrooper outfits the CPD donned for the most recent Iraq War protest.
The Trib also provides a more detailed protest route:
“Monday’s rally is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. at Union Park, 1501 W. Randolph St., where marchers will gather before heading eastbound on Randolph to southbound Des Plaines Street.
The crowd will then turn east onto Monroe Street and Jackson Boulevard at the same time and head to southbound Columbus Drive, a police news release said.
The protesters will finish the rally at Grant Park’s Hutchinson Field at Balbo Drive, where they are expected to disperse and head home in the late afternoon.”
In addition, a wider array of groups is involved:
“A spokeswoman for the organizers, Kathy Salgado, said the number of organizations involved has soared to 200 from around 50 several weeks ago.
They include Hispanic organizations but also groups like the Asian American Institute, the Pan African Association and the Polish American Association.
The Polish group is urging Chicago’s Polish-language media to publicize the march. It’s also asking priests to speak about it from the pulpit.”
Three hundred THOUSAND people. WOW.
Immigrants? You mean ILLEGAL immigrants. Have the buses ready and the flights lined up to Mexico.
That’s brilliant Bob.
However, may I suggest that for additional cost-effectiveness- and historical resonance- you might consider loading people up into railroad cars.
Illegals are sowing the winds of discontent, they will now reap the whirlwind of reprisals.
Anonymous threats of violence- how very cowardly and thoroughly un-American of you.
And this from someone that, presumably, seeks to “protect our American way of life” from immigrants.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
However, may I suggest that for additional cost-effectiveness- and historical resonance- you might consider loading people up into railroad cars.”
whatever works.
Part of me really wants to simply delete the violent, racist and xenophobic comments that you see above.
But I won’t. They serve as a helpful reminder and rejoinder that this is the Republican base. A toxic stew of violence, xenophobia and ignorance.
Now before you cry foul and say, “Not ALL Republicans are like that nikkos!”, well, I know there are some Republicans out there that do not share these views. If that is the case, why then do they tolerate these reactionary regressives within their ranks?
The GOP has used these people to win elections in the past. The irony is that this time around, the issue of immigration has split the GOP in half, and has alienated what would have been a natural consituency from ever voting for the GOP.
And people call me crazy when I accuse racism as being one of the root issues when it comes to opposition to immigration.
Nikkos: Let the racist cowards have their comments. If they really had any spine, they’d sign their names to their racist claptrap. Cowards.
Meanwhile, I wager they don’t work as hard as half the immigrants who will be marching, but they sure do enjoy the low prices that immigrant labor affords us in this country.
“They serve as a helpful reminder and rejoinder that this is the Republican base.”
Odd that you can tell the partisanship of the posters simply from their comments.
I do wonder how many folks will be inconvenienced by the drop in production around here Monday.
While mainstream America turns increasingly toward service oriented jobs, many immigrants fill the void left by todays youth that has no desire to do anything that could possibly make them perspire….
I don’t necessarily share the position of Bob and Snicker (I’m sort of agnostic on the issue of illegal immigration — I see the valid argument on both sides), but can you please explain to me how their comments are so inherently “violent, racist and xenophobic” that they demonstrate that “racism as being one of the root issues when it comes to opposition to immigration”?
Trying to separate what they implied from what you inferred… Bob commented: Immigrants? You mean ILLEGAL immigrants. On its face, nothing racist about that. Have the buses ready and the flights lined up to Mexico. Harsh? Yes. But racist? How is it an inherently racist position to say that people who entered this country illegally should be deported? I’m not asking you to agree with it, but how can you possibly use such a position as proof of racism? There is no reason why a non-racist person with a principled opposition to illegal immigration could not say all of that.
Now, we turn to your response: …may I suggest that for additional cost-effectiveness- and historical resonance- you might consider loading people up into railroad cars. This is actually the first inherently offensive thing that anyone said on this thread. Bob suggests deporting illegal immigrants, which, while you have every right to disagree with it, is not an inherently racist or xenophobic or obviously offensive position. You then respond by analogizing that position to the Holocaust, which diminishes the PURE EVIL that was represented by the Holocaust. What exactly are you saying: that everyone who opposes illegal immigration on principle is secretly a Nazi? Bob has said NOTHING that would support that assertion.
Next comes: Illegals are sowing the winds of discontent, they will now reap the whirlwind of reprisals. Now, there are two things that you could potentially object to here. One is the use of the shorthand “illegals,” which some folks on your side of the issue regard as inherently degrading. Frankly, I find the whole linguistic debate rather silly: obviously, there is nothing inherently wrong with calling “one who immigrates illegally” an “illegal immigrant,” any more than there is anything wrong with calling “one who evades taxes” a “tax evader” or “one who speeds” a “speeder” or “one who murders” a “murderer.” It’s a very simple verb-to-noun transition. The only question is whether shortening “illegal immigrants” to “illegals” somehow makes it more offensive. I can see the argument for that, but I also don’t think it’s so obviously right that you can label anyone who uses that terminology automatically racist. In fact, I know for certain that such a labelling is inaccurate, since i know several entirely non-racist people — one of them a Latina! — who use the term “illegals.” Bottom line, you can disagree with the use of the term, but it’s a debatable issue; you can’t, in good conscience, label anyone who disagrees with you as automatically racist. That’s just not accurate.
The second potentially objectionable part of Snicker’s statement is “Illegals are sowing the winds of discontent, they will now reap the whirlwind of reprisals.” You interpret the word “reprisals” as referring to violent reprisals. But is it clear that that’s what it means? Couldn’t it simply mean political backlash? Your interpretation might be right, but I don’t think it’s the only one available. Unfortunately, as your initial response to Bob’s comment made clear, you have already prejudged anyone who disagrees with your position on immigration as a racist thug, so obviously you’re going to choose the less charitable interpretation if given the option.
Finally, we come to Callielou, who quotes your Holocaust analogy and states, “whatever works.” Assuming that Callielou understood your train comment to be a Holocaust reference, this is the first honest-to-goodness, obviously offensive and beyond-the-pale thing that anyone other than you has said on this thread. Granted, it was probably said just for shock value, but that doesn’t make it defensible. So I’ll concede that you’re justified in criticizing Callielou. But your criticism of Snicker is questionable, and I’d say overly harsh; you could have asked for clarification, but instead you assumed the worst. And your criticism of Bob is completely unjustified. As I said, there is nothing about Bob’s comment that couldn’t be said by a principled, non-racist opponent of illegal immigration. Yet you compared him to a Nazi.
As I said, I honestly do not have an axe to grind — I am agnostic on this issue. But I strongly support the concept of fair, honest, rational and respectful discourse, and I am strongly turned off when people throw around terms like “racist” and “xenophobic” and analogies to Nazis lightly. If you’re going to use a few stray comments as proof that the anti-illegal-immigration movement is based in large part on racism, you better make sure that the comments are actually racist.
P.S. I am assuming there weren’t additional, genuinely racist/xenophobic/violent comments on here that you deleted. If there were such comments, and if you were responding to those comments rather than the ones that are still here, then I retract my criticism.
P.P.S. I’ll admit that “reap the whirlwind of reprisals” would be an odd way to talk about a political backlash. But the whole locution is odd. How the hell does one “sow the winds of discontent”? You sow seeds, not winds, right? And whose “discontent” are we talking about? It almost seems like a reference to Martin Luther King (“the summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent”), but that would be backwards, since Snicker opposes the cause of the discontented. So does he perhaps mean the “discontent” of immigration opponents? My point is, the whole sentence is confusing and the word choice seems off. It reads like a statement by someone who is trying to be more eloquent than they’re really capable of being. As such, even granting for the sake of argument that “reprisals” tends to connote a more violent sort of response, it doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to wonder whether that was really what Snicker meant. I seems entirely plausible that he was really talking about political backlash and just phrased it awkwardly, just as he phrased the first part of the sentence awkwardly. Again, it’s certainly not self-evident that I’m right — your interpretation is also plausible — but it’s not the only interpretation out there, and the charitable course would be to ask for clarification, rather than assuming the worst and labelling Snicker “cowardly” and “un-American” and saying he should be ashamed of himself for his “violent threats.” But again, given your response to Bob, it’s clear that you’re never going to give people who disagree with you the benefit of the doubt. What I find odd is that you actually think these comments lend support to your theory that opposition to illegal immigration is based on racism, when in reality, the comments only seem definitely racist when seen through the prism of your preconceived notion on that point.
Brendan-
First, thanks for your comments. I will attempt to reply with the same good faith with which you raised your questions. Before I do so, I will raise one question to you: if I was so off-base, why did none of the commenters attempt to explain themselves more fully? Perhaps I scared them away with my unvarnished take on their comments. More likely, to my mind, is that I hit the nail on the head, and therefore the commenters were left to slink away. I have debated many people on this blog, and usually, they stick around to defend themselves and/or their rhetorical point.
Regarding your “PS,” no I did not delete any comments- I am responding to those comments which you see here on the blog.
As for the first commenter, “Bob,” who said:
“Immigrants? You mean ILLEGAL immigrants. Have the buses ready and the flights lined up to Mexico.”
To which I replied:
“That’s brilliant Bob.
However, may I suggest that for additional cost-effectiveness- and historical resonance- you might consider loading people up into railroad cars.”
Now, I have no issue with the semantics of the debate- whether you refer to immigrants as “illegals,” “aliens,” etc. really makes no difference to me. I have no dog in that fight. It is a sideshow to the larger debate.
As for Bob’s suggestion that we simply round up the illegals, well, it doesn’t take a doctorate in history to reflect upon the last time a peoples tried to enact such a “solution.” That being said, that particular “solution” was rooted in nothing more than an irrational, ignorant fear of “the other,” in short, racism.
And since Bob aims his barbs directly at Mexican immigrants- apparently unaware that immigrants come to this country, legally and illegally, from a whole host of countries- it seems clear to me that what he really takes umbrage with is Mexicans in particular. By singling out this ethnic group, Bob demonstrates his ignorance of the issues at play in this debate, and his simplistic, knee-jerk response belies his real stance. Incidents of racist speech are like the proverbial tip of the iceberg- there is usually much, much more beneath the surface.
It’s too bad that you are offended by my invocation of Nazi history. I will not apologize for making the comparison, as I think that it is apt. The only way to prevent such atrocities in the future is to call to account those whom propose such measures in the present, by reminding them of the results of such measures in the past.
Next up is “Snicker At You,” who said:
“Illegals are sowing the winds of discontent, they will now reap the whirlwind of reprisals.”
Look, you can try and interpret this statement is as charitable a manner as you please. However, to me, this is clearly a threat of violence, couched in Biblical language. Again, I do not object to the “illegal” terminology, but I do object to the anonymous, and thus cowardly, threat. Merriam Webster defines “reprisal” as “the act or practice in international law of resorting to force short of war in retaliation for damage or loss suffered, an instance of such action”
The Bible verse in which the phrase “sown the wind/reap the whirlwind” appears is Hosea 8:1-14 which reads:
“Put the trumpet to your lips! Something like an eagle is over Yahweh’s house, because they have broken my covenant, and rebelled against my law.
They cry to me,’My God, we Israel acknowledge you!’
Israel has cast off that which is good. The enemy will pursue him.
They have set up kings, but not by me. They have made princes, and I didn’t approve. Of their silver and their gold they have made themselves idols, that they may be cut off.
Let Samaria throw out his calf idol! My anger burns against them! How long will it be until they are capable of purity?
For this is even from Israel! The workman made it, and it is no God; indeed, the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.
For they sow the wind, and they will reap the whirlwind. He has no standing grain. The stalk will yield no head. If it does yield, strangers will swallow it up.
Israel is swallowed up. Now they are among the nations like a worthless thing.
For they have gone up to Assyria, like a wild donkey wandering alone. Ephraim has hired lovers for himself.
But although they sold themselves among the nations, I will now gather them; and they begin to waste away because of the oppression of the king of mighty ones.
Because Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning, they became for him altars for sinning.
I wrote for him the many things of my law; but they were regarded as a strange thing.
As for the sacrifices of my offerings, they sacrifice flesh and eat it; But Yahweh doesn’t accept them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins. They will return to Egypt.
For Israel has forgotten his Maker and built palaces; and Judah has multiplied fortified cities; but I will send a fire on his cities, and it will devour its fortresses.”
I’m no Biblical scholar, but essentially this verse is saying that if you do not follow God’s law, God will smite you- you will reap what you have sown. God aint talking about a few minutes in the time-out corner either, he will “punish their sins,” “send a fire on his cities,” and “devour its fortresses.” Doesn’t sound like an invitation to decorous, reasoned debate to me.
Now it is possible that I have misinterpreted what Snicker meant. But if that’s the case, why didn’t Snicker seek to clarify his/her statement further?
No need to debate this comment, as I think we agree it is reprehensible:
“However, may I suggest that for additional cost-effectiveness- and historical resonance- you might consider loading people up into railroad cars.”
whatever works.”
To me, this is just chilling.
As for your contention that these statements sound racist and/or xenophobic only when one views them through a “proconceived notion,” I respectfully disagree. These statements appear racist and/or xenophobic because they are.
Thanks again for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. I stand by my comments but I do appreciate you taking the time to think the issues and share your thoughts.
Okay, I was unaware of the Biblical reference, so I’ll concede that point.
With regard to Bob, though, I think you’re allowing your personal opinion on the issue to cloud your judgment in assessing Bob’s opinion. That is to say, you’re not adequately considering the legitimate, rational arguments for Bob’s position because you feel so strongly about yours. Not that there’s anything wrong with feeling strongly about your opinion, obviously — but I don’t think the Nazi references and comments about racism can be justified. To wit:
As for Bob’s suggestion that we simply round up the illegals, well, it doesn’t take a doctorate in history to reflect upon the last time a peoples tried to enact such a “solution.” That being said, that particular “solution” was rooted in nothing more than an irrational, ignorant fear of “the other,” in short, racism.
Yes, THAT particular “solution” was indeed rooted in irrational fear and racism… but does it therefore follow that ALL “solutions” that bear a slight, superficial resemblance to it, are also rooted in irrational fear and racist? This is an unwarranted logical leap. It all depends on who you are “rounding up.” In Germany they were rounding up a particular ethnic/religious group, merely because of their ethnicity/religion. Here, Bob is talking about “rounding up” people who have broken the law — not rounding up all Mexicans or all Latinos or whatever. You may think that’s what he means, deep down in his heart, but he hasn’t given you any objective reason to think he means that.
It’s obviously wrong to claim that anytime we want to “round up” a group of people — any group of people — it’s necessarily analogous to the Holocaust. If we bust into an Al Qaeda training game and “round up” terrorists, that’s obviously OK. If we bust into a polygamous community in Utah where women are being abused and “round up” the abusers, that’s obviously OK. So you need to go a step beyond just saying “Bob wants to round people up, therefore IT’S THE HOLOCAUST!!!” That just doesn’t follow, and as I said, it diminishes the Holocaust to suggest that it does. On its face, Bob’s argument is that we should “round up” people who have broken the law by entering our country illegally, and deport them from our country — not because of an ethnic or religious reason, but because they entered our country illegally. Whether or not he’s right, that idea is NOTHING like the Holocaust. And whatever your suspicions about his secret motives, they’re just that: unsupported suspicions.
And since Bob aims his barbs directly at Mexican immigrants- apparently unaware that immigrants come to this country, legally and illegally, from a whole host of countries- it seems clear to me that what he really takes umbrage with is Mexicans in particular.
While it is true that there are plenty of non-Mexican immigrants in this country, it’s also true that the majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican, and that it’s been the Mexican flag that’s been getting all the attention these past few weeks, and that essentially, the Mexican illlegal immigrant is the “face” of the immigration debate. So while it isn’t strictly speaking accurate to talk about immigration as a “Mexican” issue, it’s not so grossly inaccurate that you can fairly assert that it’s “clear” Bob’s motives are really racial in nature. It may “seem clear to you,” but again, I would assert that’s largely because of a preconceived notion.
Also, your comment that Bob is “apparently unaware that immigrants come to this country, legally and illegally, from a whole host of countries” is totally off-base, because Bob was only talking about ILLEGAL immigrants; taking his stated position at face value, there is no reason to believe he has any problem at all with LEGAL immigrants, so where they come from is irrelevant.
By singling out this ethnic group, Bob demonstrates his ignorance of the issues at play in this debate, and his simplistic, knee-jerk response belies his real stance. Incidents of racist speech are like the proverbial tip of the iceberg- there is usually much, much more beneath the surface.
This is the kind of logic that bothers me… the assumption that if someone says something that you think is sorta kinda maybe racist, it’s reasonable to jump to the conclusion that it’s definitely racist because it’s probably just the “tip of the iceberg.” If Bob had said something genuinely and uncontestably racist, I would have no problem with you assuming that there’s more where that came from, but when any possible “racist” dimension to what he said is entirely debatable, it isn’t fair to use a unsupported assumption about what people like Bob generally think to bolster your case against him. This is actually a form of prejudice unto itself: prejudice against Republicans, or against conservatives, or against people who are opposed to illegal immigration.
It’s too bad that you are offended by my invocation of Nazi history. I will not apologize for making the comparison, as I think that it is apt. The only way to prevent such atrocities in the future is to call to account those whom propose such measures in the present, by reminding them of the results of such measures in the past.
I absolutely agree that we must be willing to make Nazi analogies when they are apt; otherwise, the phrase “Never Again” is meaningless. However, a superficial resemblance between the Holocaust and a modern event — i.e., that they both involve “rounding people up” — is not enough to justify the analogy; it does not make it apt. (I’m thinking of Lisa Simpson here: “It’s apt! APT!!!” Heh.) You need something more substantive than that, and I really don’t think you can make a substantive comparison between rounding up all the Jews (and gays, Gypsies, etc.) for the purpose of killing them, and rounding up people who have broken a specific law for the purpose of deporting them (which is, after all, the generally accepted response when someone enters your country illegally). I think your analogy is flimsy, and flimsy Nazi analogies do nothing but inflame and distort. Nazi analogies ought not be off-limits, as some people believe, but they also ought not be used lightly. I don’t think there is sufficient heft behind yours.
As for why Bob isn’t defending himself… I don’t know, but I certainly don’t consider that a dispositive point. I often drop out of blog debates because I’m busy, or lazy, or just don’t feel like debating an issue. Blog commenters are under no obligation to continue arguing a point beyond the moment when they damn well feel like stopping. :) So I don’t really care whether Bob pipes up again or not; it’s not really relevant to me, because if Bob popped up right now and said, “actually, I am a racist,” it wouldn’t prove me wrong — my point isn’t that Bob isn’t a racist, it’s that you were unjustified in calling him a racist based on the evidence available at the time you wrote your comment. The reason I spoke up wasn’t in defense of Bob, whom I don’t know, but rather in defense of rationality and the truth (as I see it). I frequently see this tendency to label opponents of illegal immigration as inherently and automatically “racist” on your side of the debate, and it irritates me. I have a lot of good, non-racist friends on both sides of this issue, and I think it lowers the level of discourse when we call each other names instead of debating the substance of the issue. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of stricter immigration controls, up to and including deportation of illegal immigrants who are already in this country. There are also legitimate arguments to be made in favor of amnesty programs and the like. And there are unsavory characters on both sides, from the racist rednecks on the Right to the reconquista MECHA and Stalinist ANSWER types on the Left. But neither side of this debate should be judged by the worst excesses of their wingnut radicals, because those folks don’t represent a majority on either side, IMHO. I suppose you may disagree with me, and believe that a majority of the anti-immigration sentiment is indeed grounded in racism — but I think your response to Bob suggests that you may be reaching that conclusion in part because of your own prejudices and assumptions, which is precisely why I brought up this point in this first place.
Anyway… good discusison. Hurrah for blogs. :)
Nikkos and Brendan: Both of you guys are making intelligent points. However, I have to agree with Nikkos. When I read the first comments to which he responded, I felt the same immediate reaction: the anonymous veiled threats were chilling, racist, and xenophobic.
I’m so sick of people in our country screaming about “playing the race card” in situations when it is truly a valid point. Most of us would rather wear the blindfold of denial than honestly look inward and see how our thinking is brutally flawed.
It was pretty clear to me that the previous poster’s comments alluded to Auschwitz, whether he realized it or not. It is the same exact line of thinking of the average German citizen, right around when Hitler rose to power. Evil people would not succeed, if not for the complacency and indifference of Average Joes. That’s exactly why the current state of America frightens me. We have people in power that are whittling away at our rights, and voters are standing by and letting it happen right before their eyes.
Thank you, Nikkos, for making a difference.
No Raphael, thank YOU- your comments are MUCH appreciated!