How about stirring more acceptance into the melting pot?

There are many tragedies in the history of the world that should never be repeated. Their having occurred even once was once too many. I wasn't alive during the Holocaust, so there was nothing I could have done about it. (Even if I had been alive, I'm not sure how much I could have done about it.) But, when I read The Lost: A Search for Six of Six Million, there was a passage whose words described uncannily what today's immigrants must face in order to come to the United States. And this time I can do something, even if that something equates only to spreading awareness.

So as not to paraphrase first-hand accounts "about the conditions inside the freight cars to the Operation Reinhard camps, during the late summer of 1942" (p. 236), author Daniel Mendelsohn opted instead to let the words of a survivor, Abraham Krzepicki, do the telling of his journey from Warsaw to Treblinka, an extermination camp in Poland.

"Over 100 people were packed into our car....It is impossible to describe the tragic situation in our airless, closed freight car. It was one big toilet. Everyone tried to push his way to a small air aperture. Everyone was lying on the floor. I also lay down. I found a crack in the floorboards into which I pushed my nose in order to get a little air. The stink in the car was unbearable. People were defecating in all four corners of the car....The situation inside the car was becoming worse. Water. We begged the railroad workers. We would pay them well. Some paid 500 and 1000 zlotys [Polish money] for a small cup of water....I paid 500 zlotys (more than half the money I had) for a cup of water -- about half a liter. As I began to drink, a woman, whose child had fainted, attacked me. I drank; I couldn't take the cup from my lips. The woman bit deep into my hand -- with all her strength she wanted to force me to leave her a little water. I paid no attention to the pain. I would have undergone any pain on earth for a little more water. But I did leave a few drops at the bottom of the cup, and I watched the child drink. The situation in the car was deteriorating. It was only seven in the morning, but the sun was already heating the car. The men removed their shirts and lay half naked. Some of the women, too, took off their dresses and lay in their undergarments. People lay on the floor, gasping and shuddering as if feverish, their heads lolling, laboring to get some air into their lungs. Some were in complete despair and no longer moved."

With a little bit more research, I found that that account actually continued for a few more sentences.

"We reached Treblinka.…Many were inert on the freight-car floor, some probably dead. We had been traveling for about twenty hours. If the trip had taken another half day, the number of dead would have been much higher. We would all have died of heat and asphyxiation. I later learned that there were transports to Treblinka from which only corpses were removed."

I hesitate to even write this blog, as I do not feel justified in attaching myself -- even only in writing -- to situations I have not lived first-hand. However, many of those people who did, are not here to share their stories; so, while I do not claim to have the same knowledge they did (because I definitely do not), I do feel that I can at least use the information I do have to acknowledge those parallel circumstances between the Holocaust (1939-1945) and immigration (ongoing) when it comes to transport.

It is impossible to say with any certainty how many immigrants have crossed into the United States illegally, as current estimates range from 7 million to 20+ million. But, one likelihood is that the way they crossed the border was through circumstances akin to those detailed by Abraham Krzepicki above.

One misconception that I believe many people in the U.S. have about "illegal immigrants" (and I put that in quotes because no person can be illegal)  is that that decision was one that the person wanted to make. The reality is that it is a decision that the person had to make. Perhaps their family was threatened by gangs, by poverty, by lack of opportunity. Immigration tears families apart and even creates new problems; people wouldn't put themselves through the risk and the agony of the journey to maybe get to the U.S. if they didn't have to.  Then, when they get to the U.S., they often experience sub-par working conditions, not being paid adequately or treated humanely, which minimize their ability to send money back to their families. The cycle is simply being perpetuated, and it has to stop. The people who come here involuntarily, often work back-breakingly hard in order to create a better life for their families.  In doing so, they also end up contributing to the economy and comprising part of the ever-expanding multicultural tapestry that has been the United States, ever since Christopher Columbus and his crew arrived in 1492 and claimed the land as their own.

We could call Christopher Columbus (left) the "first illegal immigrant," if you wanted to use those terms. (Alternatively, he could be called the first person to come into the country illegally.) But we would be wrong.  He wasn't the first explorer to set foot on the Americas (Leif Erikson (right) was...almost 500 years before Christopher Columbus "did."). Even still, it would not have been wrong for Columbus to set foot on the Americas -- his error was in stealing the land from the Native Americans.

Since then, the nation has become known as a "melting pot" -- one that embraces people from different backgrounds in order to make that multicultural thread the norm. It would be hypocritical for anyone in the United States (other than descendants of the original Native Americans) to reject immigrants, as they would essentially be denouncing themselves, the very product of other immigrants who arrived illegally.

Having a day to honor Christopher Columbus the Explorer does not seem like the right thing to do, as we should not be celebrating someone who "discovered" land that had already been discovered, claiming it as his own. So what if we celebrated Christopher Columbus the Immigrant?  Shouldn't do that either; Columbus himself was not an immigrant who just set out to create a better life for himself and his family, which is why he shouldn't be celebrated in the same context as the many other immigrants -- people -- who have risked their lives to emigrate, have contributed to the U.S., and have continued to make the country a richer, more diverse place. It is those people to whom I direct my gratitude and my admiration. This day (tomorrow) honors you.  (And kudos to the four states and other countries who got it right in appropriately naming the holiday that Columbus Day was designed to celebrate. We should follow suit to rename the day so as to truly honor the right people, since Columbus himself was certainly no role model.)

By the way, it turns out that there is a Leif Erikson Day, which occurs every October 9th. For some fun facts about that, click here.

Update: Here are links to more sites detailing why Columbus Day shouldn't be a thing.
*Christopher Columbus was awful.
*Indigenous People's Day


 

Today's blog is brought to you by the number 94 billion

Maybe the U.S. really does need to put bars around its borders, because we're all guilty of committing a crime, and in one way or another, we are all at fault.

It's called a "crime against humanity."  According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, these crimes "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."

Now let's consider the concept against the backdrop of immigrants and the U.S. policies in place (or lack thereof).  Specifically, let's look at those 11-12 million PEOPLE who do not have that highly coveted particular document, be it a visa, green card, or U.S. birth certificate -- all of which, let's face it, come from trees, anyway...and, really, to whom do the trees belong?  Nature!  If we live by the laws of nature, then why must we act so unnaturally?

So let's take a closer look.  Part of a widespread or systemic practice?  Check. Persecution? Check.  Part of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government?  Check.

We must remember that, before we are members of any political, racial, religious, national, or any other group, we are all members of humankind -- or, if you want to be *really* technical, the human race.  (In layman's terms, we all belong to the same race!) That means that someone who commits a crime against another person is also essentially committing that same crime against himself.  Everyone else is also responsible.  Why, you ask?  Because we let it happen.

Take Kitty Genovese: a 28-year-old woman who was attacked, sexually assaulted, and murdered on her way home from work at 3am on March 13, 1964.  That sequence of events is already tragic.  But there were numerous people who heard her screams and her pleas for help and did not do anything.  A New York Times article, published a few weeks later, reported that there were 38 witnesses, though there is some debate as to how many of those actually saw or were aware of the entire incident.  So, even though only Winston Moseley was the one wielding a knife, those bystanders -- no matter how many or how few there were -- had the power to save her life.  And they didn't.  Forty years later, her name had become "synonymous with public apathy," as expressed in a segment on National Public Radio which commemorated her death.

It has been said that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."  (The quote is often attributed to Edmunde Burke, though it seems he never articulated the phrase as succinctly as that.  He did, however, write in Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770) that, "when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Still, it is less important who was the first to phrase that statement in that way; the point is the truth behind it.)  What I want to know is, why don't more people live by that belief?

Two decades before Kitty Genovese's death, the world was engaged in World War II.  Zeroing in on the Holocaust (a word of Greek origin, meaning "sacrifice by fire"), Jews experienced extreme persecution and genocide.  Those who were able to get out of the targeted areas were forced to find a way to do so, as they could no longer live peacefully in their desired communities.  Those who could not escape found themselves on death marches or being deported on trains that led to concentration camps or death camps.  These cattle cars held anywhere from 50-150 passengers, and, "at times, the floor had a layer of quick lime which burned the feet of the human cargo.  There was no water. There was no food. There was no toilet, no ventilation. Some boxcars had up to 150 people stuffed into them. It did not matter if it was summer, winter, boiling hot or freezing cold. And an average transport took about four and a half days."  Six million Jews perished during the Holocaust.  And not one person in the world did enough to stop it from happening.

Now, here we are, in 2011 -- about 70 years since the Holocaust and almost 50 since the attack on Kitty Genovese.  And where are we?  In May 2011 (two months ago), X-ray equipment led Mexican authorities to the discovery of 512 people (see above) crammed into two tractor-trailers heading for the U.S.  Who are we, as fellow members of the human race, to deny our teammates the right to a better life?  Why should we treat inhumanely and/or kick out the people who risk their lives to be better and to do better?  Who are *we* to be so elitist?  After all, more than 500 years ago, pre-Christopher Columbus, *we* were the ones who kicked the Native Americans off of their land so it could be ours.  Brings a whole new meaning to "This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land," I can tell you that much.

I suppose I simply cannot understand how one human can decide the fate of another.  Isn't everyone the same?  Shouldn't we all be trying to help each other?  That may sound like an after-school special kind of message, but if it's the right thing to do, then who cares?  There is no neutrality in this world -- there are the people who act, and there are the people who don't, and everyone is responsible.  How can we let immigrants (who are, lest we forget, people just like us) willfully endanger themselves on a daily basis in conditions reminiscent of the Holocaust, just so they have the chance at a better life?  The conditions are eerily similar to those cattle cars of the 1930s and 40s, and well over half a century has passed since then.  What can we say we have actually achieved in that time?

I do acknowledge that there are and need to be border laws, for the sake of homeland security and all of that.  At the same time, however, people need to recognize that helping the countries that are producing our immigrants will have a trickle-down effect.  By going to the source and establishing partnerships to help those countries prosper will in turn spark less of a desire for those residents to willfully separate their families in search of a better life.  Those who leave their families to create a better life in the US would likely not leave their own communities if they could experience those better opportunities from their own home.  Wouldn't it, then, be in everyone's best interests to work to improve the quality of life in those other countries?  After all, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Let's take a look at some facts that spell out a little more clearly the situation in which we (as a nation and as members of the human race) have found ourselves.

According to a 2007 article in The New York Times, if the U.S.wanted to round up all 11-12 million immigrants in the country without proper documentation and deport them, it would cost $94 billion.  NINETY-FOUR BILLION DOLLARS!  What we could do with $94 billion!  What would the effect be if that sum were spent on education, rather than on punishment?  If the U.S. is willing to (senselessly) deport all of those people who risked their lives just for the chance to *try* to make a better life for themselves and for their families, what does that say about our country's priorities (other than that we are elitists who kicked out the Native Americans in order to claim the land as our own)?.  The immigrants aren't coming to kick anyone off of the land; they just want to contribute to its preservation in order to help others.

If 11-12 million people are deported, wouldn't that just perpetuate a cycle of resentment and animosity, toward a country that claims to be a "land of opportunity" and the "land of the free and home of the brave"?  We need to break out of this cycle to move forward rather than to allow history to repeat itself.  It's clear that what has been done in the past hasn't solved anything, so let's try something new. I mean, what brave act did U.S.-born citizens risk their lives to do in order to earn the right to live/work here?

In order to become a teacher, one must become certified.  But becoming certified once does not guarantee a teacher's status as "certified" forever.  Every few years (the actual number varies from state to state), a teacher must complete a certain number of professional development hours in order to maintain certification.  That makes sense -- it ensures that teachers are adapting to the changing times.  Why don't the same kinds of rules apply to U.S. citizenship?...Say, that every few years, one must complete some community service or project that contributes to the well-being of the country.  If you don't do your job as a teacher and maintain your certification, you might get put on probation and then lose your teaching license.  If you don't do your job as a citizen, maybe the same rules should apply (put on probation and then deported).  I do realize that this citizenship business is much more extreme than a teaching license, but maybe it could be deported for a year, just to experience first-hand how hard it is to adapt to life in a new country.  Perhaps this exercise would teach American citizens how to be more proactive citizens, rather than mere bystanders.

I don't wish to suggest that this whole "land of opportunity" thing centers on immigration.  Here are a few other examples.  Click on any of the below links for more eye-opening information than is listed here.

WATER: Almost one billion people do not have access to clean water.

LITERACY: 776 million people cannot read or write.

SHOES: 40% of the world's population doesn't have shoes.  (Though I don't mean to endorse this next site, I do really like this video that they have on it and encourage everyone to check it out, as it's very well done.)

Rather than spending our time, money, and efforts fighting in wars, why don't we work to promote peace and opportunity for all? Immigration is not the CAUSE of a broken system; it's one of the effects. It's not the problem itself; it's a SYMPTOM. So, why don't we work to fix the system so everyone *worldwide* (that is, our teammates, our brothers and sisters in the human race) has equal access to education, clean water, shoes, etc...basic necessities of life!  Only then will the U.S. as a country truly embody the idea that it doesn't matter upon what soil one was born.

In 1776, the United States of America became an independent country upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.  The opening of the second paragraph of the document states that, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."  Almost 200 years later, in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, within which he said (starting at about 12:25) that, "I still have a dream.  It is a dream that is deeply rooted in the American dream.  I have a dream, that one day, this nation will rise up, and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

It has been almost 50 years since MLK, Jr., gave that speech.  The U.S. now has an African-American president, Barack Obama, and we have made important strides in many areas.  In this particular moment, the government has seemingly reached an impasse when it comes to the trillions of dollars of debt facing our nation.  Wouldn't it be great if we had 11-12 million educated sets of ideas for how to proceed, along with 11-12 million pairs of hands to actually execute that plan, rather than be 94 billion MORE dollars in debt?

New Arizona law? Big problemo!

So let's talk about this Arizona immigration nonsense. And I say "nonsense" because it makes about as much sense as, well, NON. A country that is founded on the principle of equality, one that -- constitutionally -- supports life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Well, how constitutional is it for one of the fifty states to institute a statewide policy that so drastically and so negatively affects one's life, restricts one's liberty, and separates one from the pursuit of happiness (we're not even talking about achievement of happiness here) based on arbitrary measures, left up to the discretion of local police officers?  Since when do police officers occupy a civil service position that challenges the U.S. Constitution?  What kind of civility actually lies therein?According to a New York Times article from April 23, 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer (of Arizona) "acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law."  Let me ask you, Ms. Brewer: how do you define "proper" training?  How does one teach someone how to "properly" engage in racial profiling? Doesn't that go against the very principles upon which our melting pot country was founded?

In the same article, the author mentions that Senator John McCain -- the former presidential candidate who stressed his desire to help immigrants -- was under pressure to support this bill (SB 1070) and only mere hours before its signing came out in favor of it.  Let's take a quick glance at the track record of a few of our nation's recent supposed "leaders."  George W. Bush: had unsatisfactory grades throughout his undergraduate career and was, let's face it, a cokehead.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney: has an openly gay daughter, but somehow the press doesn't let that affect his "Republicanism" or his platforms.  Don't personal opinions about these issues comprise the essence of platforms?  John McCain: says he'll help immigrants, but then turns his stance to supporting legislation that targets illegal immigrants and people who look like illegal immigrants.  Right there, you have three quick examples of people in power who have less than stellar histories of demonstrating their upstanding citizenship.  And now these people are going to be responsible for ensuring the "proper training" of police officers, so they are "better" equipped to execute racist practices?  We are trusting THEM to make judgment calls?  What even makes their judgment trustworthy?  It's like we're back to pre-Brown v. BOE times.  Pre-Martin Luther King, Jr.  Even pre-Abraham Lincoln!  What's wrong with this picture?  Oh, right, and maybe I should also mention since people may not know....the President of the United States of America is a biracial man with roots in Kenya and in the U.S.  We live in a country led by someone who, under the newly-enacted Arizona law, could be approached and arrested for looking the way he does and acting in ways deemed illegal immigrant-like....whatever that means. What is our world coming to?! Or, since it seems like our world is already "there," what has our world become?

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is Austrian-born, ardently opposes illegal immigrants and their being in the U.S.  But, it seems that, once again, an elected official boasts a notable disparity between his theory and practice.  After all, he may have violated the terms of his own visa more than three decades ago.  I realize that laws are laws and it is important to be mindful citizens who abide by the law.  However, when the law itself goes against the well-being of all people [what ever happened to equal opportunity?], it makes me wonder why we should have to abide by the decisions that these elected leaders make...especially when they are elected without disclosing important information that would undoubtedly affect the voters' choice.  It hardly seems fair.

I think I might be belaboring my point, so I'll try to wrap this up...just after I point out a couple of fallacies in Ms. Brewer's (lack of) logic.  After reviewing the complete text of the governor's statement regarding SB1070, it seems that a game of "She says/She means" is in order.

She says:   This bill, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, strengthens the laws of our state. It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid -- stable and steadfast.
She means: Constitution Shmonstitution.

She says: There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.
She means: All Americans [which, clearly, only include the North Americans from the U.S.] are good.  Americans don't participate in drug cartels or take drugs at all. All immigrants are bad.  They are responsible for all the drop houses, kidnappings and violence in the U.S.  So, if we kick them out, life will be perfect...but wait? Who will mow my lawn?  Hmm...
She says: Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both AGAINST illegal immigration AND against racial profiling. 
She means: So what if I didn't declare the three cases of Jose Cuervo I bought on my last Mexican getaway? That doesn't make it illegal...[um, lady, that's exactly what it means.]

She says: I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. 
She means:...unless people start running out the back door of Chipotle before they finish making my burrito.

She says: Importantly, this training will include what DOES – and DOES NOT – constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is not legally present in the United States.
She means: If you order a taco with extra hot sauce, you better watch out. If you breathe while undocumented, you better think twice.

Ms. Brewer, you contradict yourself. You tell people one thing and you do another. You say you've thought long and hard about what you signed into law, but can you discuss what you actually considered? It seems like you have created a much bigger problem than there actually was beforehand.  Can we knock a little sense into you?  Can we actually treat the immigrants -- illegal and legal alike -- *not* as aliens?  Just as Stephen Colbert says, the answer should be, "No problemo."