On June 2, I blogged a post titled, “Why Latinos fear the Arizona law.” The lead was that of a natural-born citizen, a Puerto Rican, detained in jail in Chicago for several extra days because they wanted to make sure he was a citizen. This was despite the fact that he showed them legitimate state ID, and his mother brought in his birth certificate. My point was that the incident in Chicago (one of several to this day) pointed out what every Latino fears, that despite being born in this country, their simple skin color and external appearance would submit them to violations of their civil rights. I also pointed out that this was akin to what African-Americans complain about when they are stopped for “driving while black” or even “jogging while black.” Now, it is important to note what was brought up and what was not brought up, and the responses to it.
- It was clearly pointed out that the man who was illegally detained is a natural-born USA citizen. He is not and has never been an immigrant.
- The post never criticized the police for stopping him and checking his ID, particularly since it was in the process of investigating a crime. The post criticized the police and the ICE for detaining him for additional days and threatening him with deportation, even after he had shown all the papers that would have been required had he been stopped by an Arizona police officer under the current Arizona law regarding illegal immigrants.
- The post never argued for relaxed immigration standards. There was no reason to, since he is a natural-born citizen of the USA.
- The post never argued that he should not have to learn English. In fact, nothing about language was brought up other than a mention that he had a slight accent. In fact, if you listened to the video, he spoke perfect English with a slight Puerto Rican accent. And yet, a whole answer was devoted to Latinos demanding special language rights that no other immigrant group received. That subject has nothing to do with the fact that an English-speaking natural-born citizen was illegally detained. Obviously he speaks English and obviously I speak English.
- The post never said anything about the southwestern USA being returned to Mexico, a position that is only held by a few radicals. They are akin to the white racists still found in the Deep South and Idaho who argue for an independent country. Neither group is likely to win or is regarded as representing anywhere near a majority. In fact, the irony is that the person who was stopped and illegally detained was a Puerto Rican, a commonwealth that has voted to remain with the United States several times in its history despite being offered the opportunity to become an independent nation more than once. I happen to be a Cuban. Though I am an oddity in the Cuban community, nevertheless, I am as far away from desiring a separate country as anyone else. Most Cubans vote reliably Republican (that is why I am an oddity) and many–including myself–have served faithfully in the Armed Forces. I was drafted during Viet Nam and my daughter is serving in Iraq right now. So, I would consider the whole talk about the Mexican radical groups and the southwest as being yet another red herring thrown into the discussion.
In fact, if you read many of the answering comments, they actually support my contention. Let me repeat, my original post was about Latino USA citizens, like myself and like the man cited in my previous post, who fear that the passing of Arizona style laws will quickly make us into second-class citizens. The case cited was a clear case in point of how even USA citizens end up having their civil rights violated if they have the wrong color and accent. The discussion quickly veered from the civil rights of an USA citizen to vituperation about English, immigration, Mexican radicals, drugs, crime, in fact everything that leads to stereotyping people of a certain look and color and makes it easier to approve them being treated in a way different than the dominant culture. And, in fact, at least one of the answers did implicitly approve that separate treatment.
What does this tell me and other Latinos? It tells us the same thing that African-Americans found out during the time of the civil rights marches. Make sure not to count on your white conservative Evangelical (and other conservative Christian) brethren. They will not see the problem and may even argue that you are the problem for arguing that you have civil rights that ought not to be violated based on the color of your skin or your accent. In one of the responses to one of the people who commented, I quoted Martin Luther King’s letter from the jail of the City of Birmingham. Let me quote it here again.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
I have Arab friends. I know what they went through after 2001. Many were the stories reported in the newspapers about “Arab-looking” men being refused space on a flight until the government finally stepped in and began to openly threaten civil right actions. Sadly, all too many good white conservatives supported the pilots and tried to claim that pilots should keep the right to refuse to fly with a “suspicious” person, that being defined as an Arab-looking person. Fortunately, a pilot finally refused to allow an “Arab” member of the Secret Service to fly on a plane. That incident did more to break the stereotype, and to stop the discriminating pilots, than much else that could have happened.
Since 2001, good conservative Christians have supported the idea of extra screening for persons of a particular “look” (Arab-Americans). Now they support the idea of extra checks for ID’s for persons of a particular “look” (Latinos). In 1988, conservative Christians lined up to support the New Jersey police against a case that went to the Supreme Court for racial profiling on the highways (African-Americans). The Supreme Court ruled against the New Jersey police. In each and every one of the three cases cited, it has been justified by arguing that each of those three groups was more likely to have a terrorist, have an illegal, have drugs. Somehow, in all this the good white people always seem to come out as being much more likely to be innocent and law abiding. But, that is not the point, is it? The point is whether the Bill of Rights and all the Constitution will be equally applied to all USA citizens.
I want to see the day when white people have to prove that they are not illegal Canadians using false papers when there is a traffic stop. I want to see the day when white people driving vans are periodically stopped near Federal buildings because they might be another Timothy McVeigh. I want to see the day when white men are kept from boarding a plane because it is feared that they may have an aggression problem. I want to see the day when young white males in a car are stopped to check for illegal oxycodin prescriptions. Barring that, I will settle for a country in which no citizen of color or accent or religion or gender has to be concerned about their being a second-class citizen.
When living in Boston I knew more illegal Irish and Swedes than anything else. I think that EVERYONE who is stopped for a crime should have their identity verified. (I also knew a man who was arrested because someone of a similiar name had a warrant.) If identity is verified,citizenship status will be a part of that. I say deport ANY non-citizen criminals as they used to to Italians who were arrested for mafia activities. I also say that ANY suspicious person who is doing suspicious things should be investigated regardless of race, color, creed, etc etc. Even when they SAY they are doing things in a non-profiling way, that is not the fact. I have a friend whose family is of Lebanese Christian heritage with, of course, an Arab sounding last name. TWO generations have been born in the US. Every time she flew down here to see me, she was pulled (randomly??) aside for further investigation. She married a man of Jewish extraction, changed her last name to his and voila, she has never (randomly??) been pulled aside since. Makes one wonder…..However, I must say that more than once in the “good old days”, I was stopped for no reason I could see in the deep south when I had a Massachusetts tag on the car. Everything was a-ok when they heard my southern accent.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have a right to ask for identification as part of an ongoing investigation. If you refuse, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have a right to hold you until they can verify your identity. But, the Supreme Court has also ruled (in the New Jersey case) that one may not engage in racial profiling. In fact, any police force that does not check the identity of everyone involved in an investigation is being unprofessional.
I would also agree that the police already have full powers to check out any suspicious activity. But again, the issue is that of equal enforcement of the laws, not that of hampering the police. Hampering the police is too often a misleading red herring. Over and over the courts have ruled that every law must be enforced in an equal fashion. About the only exception is if the police have a clear description of a specific subject from a victim. Generally stopping or detaining someone based strictly on their color, ethnic background, or accent has been declared to be unconstitutional over and over.
The problem is that the man involved in this case fully complied with all legal requirements but was illegally targeted and held.
Father, your last paragraph is EXACTLY the way it is (the way it was under Clinton, Bush, and now Obama – barring the ‘Canadian’ thing) – and why so many of us won’t ever be Liberals. We ARE treated like so many of us (the majority of Americans) are only so many Timothy McVeighs. If that’s what you have on tap – I’m not drinking it. We won’t hate our homeland, we won’t hate our neighbors, we won’t hate our parents, and we won’t hate our children.
So, are you arguing against equal enforcement of the laws? Most of that paragraph was irony and sarcasm. Look at the last sentence and you will see that I am arguing for equal enforcement of the laws. No freedom is kept unless that freedom applies to all, and among the freedoms are the right to be free from “unreasonable search and seizure,” and from being deprived of your liberty simply based on the color of your skin or your accent. The case cited was one that the militia ought to actually support, since it was a person who was subjected to unreasonable treatment and who was illegally deprived of liberty.
Please note that in both my posts I am actually SUPPORTING some of the same stances as that of the militia. A citizen of the USA should be free from unreasonable detainment. The police forces of this country should NOT have the power to simply stop someone when they wish. Checks of those involved in a criminal case should be reasonable and police forces should not have the right to detain indefinitely or at length without a clear case being presented (habeas corpus). Those are traditional militia stances.
In the spirit of equal enforcement, we should also look at how we treat people with disabilities. Those of us in wheelchairs are always searched when we fly, but the lack of standard procedure becomes obvious after a few flights. Some operators are meticulous and thorough, others would have let my wheelchair through with a dark bag of mysterious contents through unnoticed. (I always take a moment to thank those that do a good job, and it suprises most of them.) The same problem exists with cops, at stores, etc.
When the law is equally enforced, it subjects it to the real will of the people, because it applies to everyone. Abusive laws are knocked down faster. As a white disabled person, I am with you.
Father, your attitude in the last paragraph (however sarcastic) is the reason why I believe that the Balkanization of the States is not only possible, but inevitable.
While I believe that all of our social ills can be traced to the Fall, as long people can mask their resentments behind a veneer of piety, or “concern,” nothing will change.
Although I am a Christian, I do not believe in egalitarianism. That is, I do not believe it exists, nor do I believe that it is an ideal. The reason is because that differences between persons exist and because people cherish their differences (else we would not have Ethnic History Months). Before we cite Galatians or I Corinthians, Paul refers in those verses to those people who have put on Christ. Even then, there is to be a diversity in parts within The Body (because you can’t have a body made up of only eyes) thus the frequent mentions of different spiritual gifts and, of course, the Holy Orders.
Blacks do not like whites. Latinos do not like whites. And enough whites and Israelis do not like being told that they are source of all the world’s evil to not like their neighbors’ agitation. Are any of these people “right?” No. But the reason why countries exist is, frankly, becuase people suck and can’t stand each other.
And our intellectual betters want to force them to integrate. Brilliant.
Believe me, I’m as white as anybody.
Frankly, if African-Americans and Latinos don’t like white people, they are completely justified. But you know what? Demonstrating a little understanding and sensitivity, showing that the cracker knows what you’re up against simply because you’re black or brown, goes a heckuva long way in overcoming that dislike. This is what white Christians are called to do. White Christians have recieved much simply because they are white. Therefore, much is expected from them.
Father, as a non-white I can tell you that the reason whites have received much is not because they are “simply white.” Whites have recieved much because their ancestors have attained much–in building civilization, in sciences and arts, in law, philosophy and a whole slew of other things–and yes, in conquests and subjugations. A thousand years ago there was no State or governing body that doled out entitlement checks or favors to “white” people because the organs* of doing so did not exist until whites invented them. Before you or anyone pontificate on the duty of the “White Christian,” you should perhaps understand a little bit of history.
*Besides the Church, which whites didn’t invent.
And whites did all these things – because?
Do you want the evolutionary explanation, factoring in questions of geography and climate, or the Divine Gift explanation? Either way, it really doesn’t matter, especially when the question of subjugation is taken into account, since these conquests had a great deal to do with facilitating many of those accomplishments. The bottom line: Europeans hit the accomplishment lottery (even if those accomplishments end up destroying the planet, which is an entirely different, but clearly relevant, question: Babylon is indeed falling.). There is certainly no priori moral reason why Europeans have dominated the planet for so long.
And I was not referring to “entitlement checks” or whatever. I was referring to things as simple as coming from a people not traumatized by a recent history of slavery or Jim Crow, or, in the case of Latinos/as, other forms of oppression. I was referring to the fact that I never have to worry about being harrassed by the police for “driving/walking/existing while black/brown”. I was referring to the fact that historically, white people were “first hired, last fired”. I could go on and on. I assure you that I understand history very well, and I stand by my statement regarding the responsibilities of white people and especially, ESPECIALLY white Christians.
I notice that, again, the subject is taken away from the civil rights of a natural born USA citizen, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to a subject which is not being discussed. Affirmative action has not been brought up at all in these discussions. The only “entitlement” that has been brought up is the “entitlement” to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. But, that is not a federal law, rather it is a Constitutional provision which the courts have said must not be enforced in a discriminatory way.
As to whether whites have received much because they have attained much is a separate discussion. Again, it is a red herring in that I am not arguing in any way for “extra rights” for anyone. I am arguing for equal enforcement of the laws, which should have nothing to do with the issue of attainment.
Father, what you’re experiencing here is what the social justice blogosphere has termed derailing, that is, when opponents of justice bend the conversation to side issues of limited importance that are irrelevant to the matter at hand, because they’re incapable of making a reasoned argument that’s on point.
Some sites have gone to a very robust moderation scheme, where each and every comment has to be approved before it is published, in order to combat this insidious problem. Some institute moderation on a post by post basis, only going to the heaviest form when a post is about a contentious subject. Others rely upon allied readers to follow a strict rule of “do not engage a derailer.” Still others make sure a moderator/owner replies to all derails with a simple “this is derailing and will not be addressed” sort of response.
I understand the desire to interact in good faith will all comers, but that presumes that all comers are acting in good faith, and clearly, many are not. As you continue to carry the torch of justice and righteousness in your own very gentle, humble way here in your little corner of things, I hope you can find some happy medium that allows for meaningful discussion of the important issues that are on your mind.
God bless you.
Oh good grief. I am white and teach at a black college. Blacks not liking whites completely justified? Talk about blanket statements. As for what someone is up against, lots of people are up against a whole lot. Whether it be race, poverty, abuse… many of the black kids I teach have been raised in mansions and drive Hummers. I grew up in a trailer. Who cares? We are all indiviuduals. One white guy is an opressor, another a missionary. The sooner we get past this attitude the better. As for Arizona, the problem is not the law but the lack of immigration enforcement that begged the law!
Again, the problem is the enforcement of the law and the fact that so far I have cited three incidents of various laws being enforced inappropriately against USA citizens who had the proper identification on them. I could have cited more incidents. My concern in this article was not about whether whites hate black or whether blacks hate whites. My concern was that regardless of color, the police have the responsibility to equally enforce the law. And, I cited evidence that the Arizona law had simply encouraged the police to mistreat USA citizens in violation of their Constitutional rights, based solely on their looks. Remember, all three cases were citizens with appropriate ID on them, and that ID was ignored by the police.
First of all, Fr. Ernesto – now would be a great time for a positive statement of your ideal immigration policy. You present an obviously bad anecdote, and to some of us you seem to suggest wholesale disgust with the law as is. Then you get upset when people infer your views. So tell us. How would you change immigration law? Then, if you want, we can debate that.
Fr. Greg – I won’t be joining in your mea culpa for your entire race. The word “cracker” disgusts me. I also won’t be partaking of “sensitivity”, which too often is a code word for power politics. In fact, I submit that many “racism” episodes are no such thing. Ultimate example: several years ago a survey of blacks in Philadelphia revealed a majority believed AIDS was a government plot to kill black people. That’s paranoia.
As a white Christian, I promise to take everyone as an individual, not to discriminate against one group to atone for prior discrimination against another.
Apropos another comment by you elsewhere: America went off the rails at the point where the melting pot became the salad bowl. My radishes are attacking the lettuce.
Since I am white, I reserve the right to use the word “cracker”. It is hardly the moral equivalent of some words which refer to people of color. Regarding “paranoia” such as you mention: Yes, it is paranoia. However, it is entirely understandable, and no more harmful, perhaps less harmful, than the paranoia of white people expressed by groups such as the militias, the John Birch Society, and the Tea Partys.
I will take a salad bowl over a melting pot any day. And if the lettuce is being attacked by the radishes, what is the duty of the lettuce, especially if the lettuce claims to follow Christ? “Turn the other cheek” and, in paraphrase, “settle out of court”. The melting pot, OTOH, is created when the lettuce creams the radishes (which, knowing their history, the radishes are afraid of in the first place).
If we are Christians, and especially if we are Christians of a privileged class or other group, we had better be found on the cross with Christ, not a part of the mob or the soldiers doing the crucifying.
I will be happy to do so, but on a separate post. Again, please note that this post is about the treatment of USA citizens, particularly a natural-born one, not about immigration policy. Various people who have responded have tried to drag this post over into the area of immigration policy, but that is not what this post is about. My frustration is that people keep trying to drag it over to any subject other than the equal rights of a natural-born USA citizen. My question is not about immigration policy, but about whether the police may selectively enforce a law based on external appearance. My clear answer is that the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that the police may not. My sadness is that, more than once, white evangelicals have argued that this was a wrong judgment by the Supreme Court. My point was that quite a few of us non-white USA citizens are saying that it was a correct judgment and that this shows why we have deep misgivings about “conservative” white Christians. That is why I quoted Martin Luther King on that subject.
You say that this post is an “obviously bad anecdote.” Well, it actually happened and was reported was several news outlet. I would assume that you mean that this is an isolated incident that is not representative of how the law will be enforced. But, it is not an isolated incident.
For instance, on 21 April, an Arizona truck driver (name withheld by me) was pulled over and held despite having legal identification on him, he is Latino.
“***** was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed. An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate.” ***** explains, “I have his social security card as well and mine. He’s legit. It’s the first time it’s ever happened.” Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option.
He is a natural born citizen of the USA and of Arizona, but despite having a legal driver’s license and his social security card, he was held. Try doing that to a white Arizona citizen! In passing, he had committed no crime whatsoever, he simply drove up LEGALLY to have his truck weighed at a weigh station several hundred miles from the border.
Here is a better one for you nice white conservative Evangelicals. Ben Lowe is a natural-born citizen. He is the author of Green Revolution: Coming Together to Care for Creation, published by Inter-Varsity Press. In other words, he is a conservative Christian. He is even running AS A REPUBLICAN for Congress from the State of Illinois. It is too bad that he is “mixed” American-Asian because he was pulled over by Chicago police, forced to step out of his car and searched along with his car. What was the reason? Well, he wrote an article and he says the police told him it was because he looked Hispanic and that “they” were known to run drugs along the route he was driving to Chicago. In his article he writes, “Fear of change may produce a wave of new legislation, born less out of legitimate legalities and more of fear, fragmenting the unity-in-diversity which is our national treasure.” No charges were filed, no radio calls to headquarters speak of any possible crime being committed, rather everything points to his account being accurate, particularly because the police have never denied it nor tried to explain it as anything other than a traffic stop based on simple looks.
This Republican candidate learned a hard lesson. The various attitudes and laws that are seeking to be passed are born, “less out of legitimate legalities and more of fear. . .” That is our biggest fear. One of the commenters accused Latinos and African-Americans of “whining.” I would suggest that this was “fear” speaking, but in a different form.
So, a final question, how many more examples must I provide before those reading this post admit that there is a real problem with real consequences that are happening right now? These are not the only two since around the time of that law.
I agree. That’s awful. There’s a problem. No law should fail to distinguish adequately between targets and innocent bystanders.
“Nice white conservative Evangelicals.”
I think your passions get the better of you here. I am a white minority, and I can tell you that whoever has the numbers WILL abuse the minority. It never fails. The color is incidental.
You are right, the color is incidental. But, in this country, the majority is “white.” I was a missionary, and in Peru and Bolivia it was the Latinos who were oppressing the indigenous peoples. In countries like Guatemala, the oppression is violent. That is why so many Guatemalans have fled to this country. The majority are indigenous and actually do not speak Spanish well. They came here, yes illegally, fleeing Latino oppression.
But, uhm, in this country . . .
The biggest problem is that the laws of the United States are not being enforced, it is taking a state to drive this point home. The other problem that we have as a country is that we don’t have a national language. We need to control our borders and make the illegals that are here go to the back of the line, pay a fine, learn English, learn about this country and pay taxes. They should not get a free ride to the front of the immigration line. Any employer that hires a known illegal should be heavily fined.
Everything that you say (except going to the back of the line) was part of the immigration reform plan under President Bush. It was scuttled by his fellow Republicans.
Amen, amen, and amen! I appreciate you speaking out on this important topic. I also agree with everything you have written. Thank you too FrGregaCCA for your insights.
I have written on similar topics on my own blog (converted to something else now in part because of the hatred so prevalent in the comments by people calling themselves Christians). I was horrified by how readily some people would twist what I wrote, call me ridiculous names, make significant assumptions about my political positions and theological positions, and generally attempt to redirect the conversation to something entirely different. I could go on but I will refrain myself. My point is simply that I have encountered the same thing you are frustrated with here. Consequently, I appreciate your willingness to continue to defend this important position.
For the record, I am white. I am also horrified by the history of my people and absolutely believe that it is my calling and responsibility as a follower of Jesus to be a minister of reconciliation – regardless of someone’s immigration status, ethnic background, race, etc. There is simply no justification for any such attempt at avoiding our Christian responsibility.
I used to be politically conservative and evangelical. Frankly, I thought the two were essentially inseparable. I have learned differently over the years though, thanks to the grace of God. Depending on the day I may refer to myself as a-political or moderate. Either way, I refuse to be a part of any political party because I don’t believe any political party has the same priorities that I have as a Christian.
My roots are baptist, then later independent evangelical. I now worship at a Vineyard church that I am quite certain God has placed us in for this season. I am, however, increasingly attracted to Orthodoxy. Fr. Obregon, you are the one who largely introduced me to Orthodoxy so I have you to thank for my interest. I have been expanding my knowledge through the many podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio.
Anyway, thanks for the great work you do – even when that work is defending a cause that is less than popular with so many people.
“In fact, if you read many of the answering comments, they actually support my contention.”
Good on you, Father, for calling BS on the painfully racist comments you’ve been getting!
Tangents…..Constitutionally mandated rights are for ALL citizens. Period End of Report. Alix