Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Let it bleed

"What about the Jewish heart and Jewish compassion and Jewish morality?"
asks Elie Wiesel. Perhaps those are no different from anyone elses heart, compassion and morality: just ornaments to wear on parade and to mock when it's not profitable or when we're not comfortable. People who are troubled by plans by the State of Israel to deport people born and educated there; sometimes minors, who speak the language and often no other language because their parents, brought in as 'guest workers,' have overstayed their visas.

In a country offering automatic right of citizenship to any Jew, born there or not, it seems inconsistent, unless we consider that universal human tendency to surround one's self with one's ilk. These native residents are not, of course, Jews and apparently the official design of Israel as a "Jewish State" is threatened by religious diversity -- and who or what country remains moral when threatened? Not the US, not Israel.

Eli Yishai, Minister of the Interior and the man who oversees immigration policy invokes the "bleeding heart Liberal" straw man so well used by right wingers everywhere as though compassion, mercy and indeed, morality had no place in that questionable construct: the Judeo-Christian ethos.

The US doesn't seem to be in a position to offer criticism or guidance, of course. We have our own problems reconciling our facade with what goes on, and like Israel, we cling to the word illegal as though it were a solid refuge against moral condemnation. People; small children who are illegal as a result of no action of their own and who have had no ability to comply with immigration laws rightly make one's heart bleed if one has a heart with blood in it. Indeed it can be said of both nations, that they make a big issue of alleging Biblical origins for their laws while using the law as though morality were too expensive, too inconvenient and too frightening.

It's ethnic cleansing and it's always a dirty business and these days our tendency to continue to make such noble statements as one finds on the Statue of Liberty reek of hypocrisy concerns me more than the admittedly real problems with uncontrolled immigration. Perhaps we should come clean and put an "If you're white, you're all right" in Lady Liberty's hand or at least stop pretending our laws are a salute to Jesus. If we follow through on the assault on the 14th amendment, making people born and raised as Americans, who pay taxes, have jobs and businesses but never knew there parent's weren't citizens, we're going to inherit the same moral dilemma. I have to wonder in fact, as to whether, having had a grandfather who was never a citizen, my mother would retroactively be an alien, making me, after 65 years as a citizen, subject to deportation and constant fear lest there be a midnight knock on the door by a black gloved fist.

If there's no moral problem with sending a kid who speaks only English back "home" to Azerbaijan or Guatemala with no chance of appeal, then it's time we stopped pretending we're any different from anybody else.

8 comments:

  1. We hear a lot of talk about "deleveraging" which is basic a fancy way of saying that we are reducing our debt exposure....

    I also think that we are also deleveraging our morals, values, and principles. We are reducing our debt exposure in more currencies than just money...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another labor-as-commodity dehumanization that only values labor when you need them, and when you no longer need them, their progeny end up disposable … and stateless. Not just in Israel, but in Germany too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think we probably should have stopped pretending we were any different from anyone else in 2003 when we decided to "go it alone" on those good ol' "WMDs" that are no where to be found. When we slaughtered how many Iraqis in the name of the 3,000 dead on 9/11. I wonder who we will slaughter in the name of those who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan?

    Open the damn borders. Figure out which people should be returned to Mexico because there are APBs out on them and let the rest in the damn door. Issue them a Visa, a Social Security # and make them pay taxes. Make them get government issued health insurance (is that avaialable yet?) and have them pay into social security!

    Sick of the BS, you know? Why isn't common sense common?

    ReplyDelete
  4. What's up with Mexicans anyway?

    We stole their land fair and square.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But it's different when we steal something - 'cause we're the greatest.

    The "guest worker" think hasn't worked out well for any country that I know of and that's probably why the old republicans advocated a path to citizenship for those willing to work and pay taxes here, but the political advantages of riding the racist bandwagon has seduced the latter day Republicans.

    Huge influxes of immigrants are always troublesome, but there must be some saddle point where you let in enough that the borders are easier to control but not so many that assimilation is difficult. Seems like Canada does a better job than we do.

    But my argument above is that you don't treat people as you would not wish to be treated and you don't make a big issue of religion if you don't buy into that simple rule. If you don't, all your religion is, is another tribe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every first year law student in the U.S. has to take a course in property law. One of the required cases is Johnson v. M'Intosh , 21 U.S. (8 Wheat) 543 (1823).

    In the case, the U.S. Supreme COurt ruled that private citizens could not purchase land directly from Native Amwericans. The court's reasoning was that the U.S. government had free title to all lands held by Native Americans based on the established rules of European colonization.

    It seems that the Native Americans lost their sovereign rights to the land upon which they lived when it was "discovered" by the Europeans. The court ruled that the Native Americans did not have title or ownership of the land but merely occupancy rights and as such could not convey title to another because they had no title rights. This line of case law became known as the Discovery Doctrine and was used to legally justify the wholesale theft of the land of Native American tribes. When we discussed the case in class, I raised a question about the unethical application of law by the supreme court under Chief Justice John Marshall which was immediately shut down by the professor as irrelevant to the discussion of the case. The rest of my law school classmates didn't express any opinions about the ethics of the ruling and its impact on current notions of property ownership. This country was founded on hypocrisy and has never been any different from any other country.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But - but. . .we're the GREATEST!! Don't we have all those parades and baton twirling blondes -- and our FLAG! What about that FLAG!

    Hell this country would welcome Mexicans if we could sell them as slaves and don't think that thought isn't on some minds.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Sheria for your insight.

    This illustrates why I get queasy when 'real Americans' refer to the 'Founding Fathers'.

    That it's worked as well as it has is credit to citizens over the years who have made it their business to oppose injustices built into the system from day one.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.