Friday, September 14, 2007
SWOP homepageGiuliani's non sequitur convolutes immigration debate
"It's not a crime," Giuliani said Friday. "I know that's very hard for people to understand, but it's [illegal immigration] not a federal crime."
"I was U.S. attorney in the Southern district of New York," he said. "So believe me, I know this. In fact, when you throw an immigrant out of the country, it's not a criminal proceeding. It's a civil proceeding."
“One of the things that congress wanted to do a year ago is to make it [illegal immigration] a crime, which indicates that it isn't.”
How interesting. You mean we’ve been having this debate, and the core frame of the debate is wrong?
How can something that’s not illegal be a crime? How then can people call immigrants “illegal?" How is legalization an answer if “illegal immigration” is…not illegal? It doesn't square.
Illegal immigrant vs Undocumented
As most folks who have followed this debate know well, the use of the term “illegal immigration” is central to the debate waged in media about immigration.
I’ve brought this up with immigrant rights advocates and organizers repeatedly. ‘How can you ask for legalization?’ I often ask. By accepting the premise of the racist right, you start the debate at a disadvantage. And the solution to that premise is simple to much of America. Deport all those law-breakers.
That’s why the demagogues fought so hard to make sure the media picked up the “illegal” spin and frame.
What’s the solution if folks are called “undocumented?” That’s right. Get them documents.
It’s about time the media use a new phrase to describe immigrants who over stayed their visas or, yes, crossed in the desert somewhere. Or embrace the “undocumented” frame – it’s more accurate, and will get us closer to solutions. This is really an issue of civil and human rights.
It makes one wonder how often Lou Dobbs, O’Reilly, or Rush actually said “illegal.” For that matter, damn, what about all those ‘respected’ journalists?
The original article was posted at Echolandia.Karlos Schmieder, former communications organizer at SWOP, is a media strategist for Youth Media Council, based in Oakland, CA. YMC is a leader in the emerging international movement for media justice. Karlos was recently co-chair of the Communications working group of the United States Social Forum, and is currently working on "Displacing the Dream," a content analysis of displacement and housing issues in the Bay Area scheduled for a late October release.
Even someone like John Hyde, who by the accounts of ballistics tests and firm physical evidence murdered people in Albuquerque, including two cops, has to have the qualifier "Alleged" in front of the term "Murderer".
There is also the intent factor in many crimes; it is not a crime unless you had a plan and mindful willingness do do so. When a person comes with their parents to this country without immigration papers it is often not of their own choice. My favorite example is a 15 year old kid of an undocumented worker. How much choice does a teenager have when their parents move here? NONE. I know I could not have told my parents where to live when I was that age. There is no intent to violate any laws in that case: only a kid's need to be with thier parents.
very interesting. that's real. i think it's worth looking into.
keep coming back and sharing your great ideas.
Links to this post:
<< Home
