A week after I sent out my letter, I received this letter from Garrick.
I could take on the letter issue by issue, but it is easier to read for yourself and to acknowledge that it falls in line with the Republican position on illegal immigration. Garrick's letter carefully avoids using the word Mexican and never mentions where the problem illegal immigrants are entering "our State." That's a good thing because I would hate to think that our national immigration policy was being steered to repel a specific ethnicity.
But, of course, that is what is happening. Arizona's law, while following the legal steps of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, is directed at one ethnicity: Mexicans and Latinos from Central and South America. Race is the prime, if not the exclusive, identifying characteristic from which Arizona state and municipal law enforcement can stop a suspected illegal immigrant. How else can it be done? Maybe U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray can share his knowledge on how to identify an illegal immigrant.
Some have made the argument, then, that all law enforcement stops would then have to be racist. That may be true, but most crimes have other significant indicators that point to a suspect. Burglars, if contacted by law enforcement, would have answer the question as to why they are in a neighborhood (not their own) and why they are in possession of burglary tools and/or stolen property, and so on.
Race is used, and has been greatly misused, as an identification tool when it comes to crimes and those suspected of committing crimes. But, again, I keep coming back to how an illegal immigrant will be identified by state and local officials in Arizona. I fall back on my training in law enforcement (Palomar College Police Academy, Level II, Class 27-98R, fall 1998) as to what the identifiers will be, and I keep coming back to race and the belief that this law is directed solely toward Latinos.
State and local authorities have a bevy of laws to enforce (not like federal immigration authorities, who only enforce laws associated with immigration), and adding this law on top of those laws creates a difficult working environment at best. I remember from my academy training that it was made clear to my class that federal laws are just that: federal laws to be enforced by federal authorities. Our training officers told us that we will have our hands full with state and local laws; there would be no time for us to try and enforce federal statutes.
I feel sorry for Garrick, I really do, because it does not matter what he believes or what he feels in his soul, he is a politician in North San Diego County, an extremely conservative area of Southern California. In fact, now-reformed Republican strategist Kevin Phillips writes in his 1969 conservative playbook, "The Emerging Republican Majority," that regarding San Diego, "the city's 45,000 Negroes call their city 'the Mississippi of the West.'" (NOTE: If you can find a copy, read this book. Everything from Nixon's and Reagan's presidencies to the using of race and issue-oriented policies to divide the United States is outlined in this book. You'll have a new outlook on your role in our brand of democracy.)
Garrick writes he is honored to represent me in the Assembly. I have no doubt that he does, and I respect anyone who subjects themselves to the election process. I appreciate his willingness to go to Sacramento, although I don't agree with most of his political opinions. Yet, so much of politics is what one does with the power they are granted. Along with this power comes an opportunity to reflect on one's own stances, and whether these positions taken are lifting up people or holding them down.
Garrick's stand on illegal immigration holds people down, and limits their opportunities. The citizenship of these people does not matter. On this issue, I am ashamed of Garrick's stand. There is reciprocity in the illegal immigrant problem. It is economics, of course, and that is why it has been allowed to continue for such a long period of time. But the motivation behind this recent brand of racial bigotry is not rooted in economics. It is being packaged as such; however, Garrick does not explain what will occur once the 'cheap' labor pool is dried out. The synergy of this labor relationship will be ruined, and we will all feel the pinch.
One more personal note, my grandmother on my father's side was born in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico in 1913. She and her family illegally crossed into El Paso, TX, and then made their way to Southern California to work in agriculture. My grandmother was an illegal immigrant until she married an Irish military man and became a U.S. citizen. I am the descendant of an illegal Mexican immigrant. I think about my grandmother and Arizona, which she crossed to come to California. The what-ifs are numerous. In short, when I see what is happening in Arizona and when I get a letter such as the one from Garrick, I can't help but feel as if a part of me is not wanted in this country. And as long as the people and politicians continue to act as cowards, supporting and enacting laws that reflect their own insecurities, I will more and more feel as if I am not wanted here.
My solace, however, is my vote, which I cast in each election. My father tells me he takes great pride in knowing that his presidential vote cancels out Rush Limbaugh's vote, and I love that idea. I've made Mitch McConnell my huckleberry on the national scene.
Now, I need to find a vote to cancel in California. Should I find someone in news entertainment, the sickly phoenix that rose from the ashes of journalism? Or maybe some political bigwig? The answer is clear: I can take pride from here on knowing I cancel Assemblymember Garrick's vote. Garrick, you are my state-level huckleberry.
No comments:
Post a Comment