Online activism, fighting by writing

I've said before that reading the news and reading people's comments on the news are two methods of taking the pulse of society. This is what leads to a not insignificant amount of despair and frustration when so many of the public comments on news stories are profoundly against what I believe in (whether they are railing against environmental protections, rigid pro-capitalist diatribes against anything remotely resembling social and economic justice, racist and dehumanizing remarks about "illegal" immigrants, et cetera). But a wise professor has noted that there are groups whose sole purpose is to troll the internet looking for stories and blogs on specific causes, and to rail against them. That there is a virtual project by the Minutemen to look for articles on immigration probably shouldn't have come as much of a shock.


This is why I recently joined a group whose raison d'être is to provide an online voice to counter the often-hateful comments made on news stories regarding "illegal" immigrants. The idea is that, to quote the group's description and information:


We need to BE VOCAL (AND VERBAL) ONLINE. We can't just "speak" during occasional marches, nor can we think they will "hear" us only at the ballot box, and we certainly can't rely just on signs that end up in the garbage! Stand up and WRITE / FIGHT !... 


We will defend our friends, families, and neighbors by blogging after news stories and standing up to the xenophobic and racist "Comments" (reader-response blogs that are attached to newspaper articles) that are running roughshod over the immigration debate. We will support one another by coordinating our responses, and we will win the "turf wars" that swirl around every page of online news. We stand united for our friends, our families, and the future of our democracy.


To a limited extent, this is something I've been doing for a while on a much smaller scale whenever I came upon certain news stories on the Knoxville News-Sentinel. But this group takes it to a whole new level where members are encouraged to actively seek out news stories at the Huffington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times, et cetera, and post the stories on the group's Facebook page so that everyone else knows where to focus their attentions. They even suggest everyone to do their online activism in a specific time of day so that members know their fellow bloggers are there with them, virtually, although we're encouraged to do this virtual vocalizing at whatever hour is most convenient for us personally.


So far it has been... an experience, to say the least. The same rhetoric and misconceptions get recycled over and over again. Personal attacks are often made. I strongly suspect that some individuals (on both sides of various arguments) post under multiple monikers to give the illusion of additional "support." And some stories wind up with hundreds or even thousands of comments. Where does one even begin to address all of that? It's only been a few days and there already exists the distinct feeling of wrestling with pigs in the mud. An English professor once said you can't argue about issues of belief or taste, and it's become apparent that many of these individuals are firm in their beliefs and are not likely to budge on them any time soon. And – this is going to sound horribly elitist – I fear that there are many folks out there who simply cannot handle an intellectual argument. They don't understand what someone else is saying, so they get angry and counter with, "Whatever, you [expletive] liberal" and then go after straw men. How is that productive?


On the plus side, though, there are definitely also a number of individuals who are being far more sane on the issue, including those who are on the "other side" of the debate but who are at least debating intelligently rather than using "illegal is illegal" as their mantra without any consideration as to what that phrase means or the implications of it. I can respect someone who is respectful and open to true dialogue, even if I don't share their opinions. And of course it is a source of hope that many individuals are also on "our" side, calling people out on their xenophobic remarks and providing reasonable, rational arguments as well as emotional appeals.


I vacillate between thinking that this medium of online advocacy is the best idea ever, and worrying that this is relatively lazy "armchair" activism. Is responding in a virtual forum going to have the same effect as staging a sit-in in Arizona and risking arrest? (Especially for someone like me who has the luxury of U.S. citizenship, where the worst problem I would face would be a heavy fine, not deportation.... the only excuse for not doing something like this is my own cowardice.) Is it going to have the same effect as marching in the streets? (It would probably take something pretty extreme for an online forum to get a blurb in the nightly news.) Is the point to change the minds of the racists and xenophobes who are posting? (If so, I doubt that will work.) If the point is to simply be a presence, though, this may really be something. 


Environmental activist/author Derrick Jensen writes about how every day he asks himself whether he should continue writing or if he should go blow up a dam, and every day he chooses to write. While my own dilemma isn't quite that extreme, I can certainly understand being torn between more active modes of advocacy and the somewhat more passive act of simply writing about one's beliefs. Is the pen mightier than both the sword and the picket sign?


Émile Durkheim noted that division of labor in society is a form of organic solidarity, reinforcing social bonds through mutual interdependence. There are brave souls who will risk arrest and deportation by staging sit-ins, as well as relative cowards like me who can't bring themselves to do much more than march at a rally whose organizers went through the pains of obtaining permits. Even writers have their place in activism, though, for their words can reach a larger audience and perhaps educate others in a medium that may seen less "threatening" than carrying a picket sign. Antonio Gramsci couldn't do much from prison other than write, and his prison notebooks influenced the likes of Howard Zinn, Eric Wolf, Noam Chomsky, and David Harvey, who in turn have influenced (and continue to influence) countless others. I am no Derrick Jensen or Vandana Shiva, but am proud to say that my entry about the DREAM Act, cross-posted at Open Diary and at AlterNet, received several positive comments from people who said they'd never even heard about the DREAM Act before and were now going to write to their legislators in support of it, and it got positive "tweets" as well. (There was also a nasty person on AlterNet who posted several nasty comments, but that's another ball of wax.) To paraphrase Julia "Butterfly" Hill (who gained fame by sitting in a California redwood for over two years), we all make a difference; it's just a matter of the kind of difference we make. And, perhaps, the medium we choose in which to make it.


The tentative conclusion to which I've come is thus: Certainly, fighting by writing cannot serve as a substitute for more active activism. But it can certainly complement it. 


Thoughts?

News Story: TN tea party won't drop speaker for Islam views

Blogger's note: I am actually going to the Gatlinburg-ish area next week, but as I won't be arriving until Monday, I'll be missing out on the Tea Party. Somehow, I think I'll get over that disappointment. Although I would like to take this woman to task for what she has to say. As though people who call themselves Christians who claim the Bible as their authority have never perpetrated outrageous atrocities? And she's actually claimed on her personal blog – no joke – that "Hitler and the Nazis were inspired by Islam." Uh.... what? I'm all for free speech, but this just adds to the growing pile of evidence that a not insignificant proportion of Tea Partiers are racist and/or xenophobic. And maybe just a little bit stupid.

The video at the bottom of this post is the same video posted at the News-Sentinel website.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/may/21/group-wants-speaker-dropped-tenn-tea-party/

TN tea party won't drop speaker for Islam views

• ERIK SCHELZIG, Associated Press Writer
• Posted May 21, 2010 at 6:40 a.m. , updated May 21, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.

NASHVILLE - Tea party organizers will not drop a speaker from a Tennessee convention this weekend despite calls from a national Muslim rights group that considers her anti-Islamic.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations had urged that Pamela Geller be cut from the Tennessee Tea Party Convention in Gatlinburg over her views on Muslims. Washington-based CAIR said in a release Thursday that it objects to Pamela Geller's presentation titled "The Threat of Islam."

Convention organizer Anthony Shreeve said in an e-mail today that Geller will speak despite those concerns.

"We will not follow any request from CAIR," Shreeve said. "We also believe in the right to freedom of speech as given to us by our U.S. Constitution."

Geller heads a group called Stop Islamization of America.

"CAIR is trying to get good, decent Americans in the Tennessee Tea Party to crush free speech by dropping me," Geller wrote on her blog.

The Gatlinburg meeting has been organized by a coalition of more than 30 tea party groups around the state that chafed at the goals and price tag of a national tea party convention held in Nashville in February.

The registration fee for the Gatlinburg event is $30, while the Nashville event that featured a speech by former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin cost $549.

Grass roots activists have criticized Nashville event organizer Judson Phillips' leadership of the Tea Party Nation for being too closely tied with the Republican Party and for designating the group a for-profit organization.

Phillips' group has scheduled a "National Tea Party Unity Convention" in Las Vegas in July.

The Gatlinburg meeting features a keynote speech from U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and a debate among Tennessee gubernatorial candidates.

More details as they develop online and in Saturday's News Sentinel.

Why the DREAM Act Shouldn't Be Controversial

Anyone currently living in the United States or who pays any attention to the news coming out of here knows that immigration has come to the fore as a hot-button issue, and one which has been relatively polarizing in U.S. politics as of late. One piece of proposed legislation, though, should not be controversial once you understand the provisions contained therein: the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (commonly abbreviated as the DREAM Act).

Over a million young people living in the United States are undocumented (or, as the mainstream media call them, "illegal") because of the simple fact that their families brought them here – as babies, young children, or young teens – without authorization. These youth live normal lives and are indistinguishable from citizens or legal residents. They often do not even know that they are undocumented until they want to undergo normal teenage rites of passage – like getting a driver's license or applying for college or registering to vote – only to be told by their parents that they are not in the country legally. 

Under current laws, the only way these young people can rectify their legal status is to go back to their country of origin – where they will be banned from re-entry to the United States for five to ten years – and then and only then can they even applyto return to the U.S. Many of them do not speak the language of their countries of origin; the United States is the only home they've ever known, and all of their friends and social networks are here. Some of them come from countries where they would be persecuted or even killed because of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. And remember... these youth had absolutely no say in the decision to come to the United States without authorization. 

If made into law, the DREAM Act would allow undocumented persons who were brought to the United States before the age of seventeen a chance to legalize their immigration status. This would not, I repeat, NOT be an amnesty, and this is a path to legalization, not citizenship per se.

• Applicants must meet all of the following requirements:
  
  • They must prove that they arrived in the United States before the age of seventeen and that they have lived here continuously for at least five consecutive years. (This is, by the way, exceedingly difficult to prove when they are not eligible for state IDs or drivers licenses, and this provision alone will weed out a significant proportion of potential applicants.)
  • They must be between the ages of twelve and thirty-five at the time the bill is enacted, and at the time of application must have graduated from a United States high school or obtained a GED.
  • Furthermore, they must qualify under the "good moral character" provision, which bars those convicted of felonies or "crimes of moral turpitude" (including drug-related offenses or shoplifting) or "habitual drunkenness."
• If the applicant satisfies all of these requirements, they are granted a provisional legal status and are given six years to either:
  
  • 1. Graduate from a community college,
  • 2. Complete at least two years toward a Bachelors degree, or
  • 3. Serve two years in the United States military.
• During this six-year period, applicants would not be eligible for government grants such as Pell grants. They would, however, be eligible to apply for private scholarships, private loans, and work study. They could obtain driver's licenses and work permits.
• If the applicant does not complete the required education or military service requirements in the six-year period, or if they commit any of the above-mentioned crimes in the interim period, their conditional status would be repealed and they could be deported. 
• If the applicant completes the education or military service requirements in the six-year period, they would be eligible for legal permanent residency (LPR) status.

In short? A young person who is able to prove that they came to the United States as a minor, who graduates from high school (or the equivalent) and goes to college on their own dime or serves in the United States military for two years and does not commit a crime, is able to become a legal permanent resident.

There is nothing in this piece of legislation which a reasonable person – even those with staunchly anti-"illegal" immigration stances – should be able to denounce. Applicants under the DREAM Act would still not be citizens, and this law would have no bearing on the legal status of their family members (who, because of current laws, could not be sponsoredby their children anyway). LPRs cannot vote and they are subject to Selective Service, and of course they would still pay taxes (which about 75% of undocumented workers also pay, by the way). They can still be deported if they commit certain crimes. Can I stress again that they will be paying taxes? They can apply for citizenship only after a full five years of permanent residency if they are not convicted of crimes.

The DREAM Act is by no means a perfect piece of legislation or a panacea for the broader problem of an immigration system which everyone seems to agree is "broken." I would argue that it does not go nearly far enough and that there is still a grave need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level. But the provisions of the DREAM Act by itself should not be at all controversial. It provides a path to legalization for young people who had no say in the decision to come to the country "illegally" in the first place. 

Why I Marched on May Day

Reading the news is one way to gauge what's going on in the world; reading the public's reaction to the news is another barometer. A few weeks ago, after reading a news article on the Knoxville News-Sentinel website about an immigration raid, I scrolled down again to see readers' responses to this particular story. There was a lot of the same worn-out rhetoric about "illegals," but that wasn't what got me. What made me sick to my stomach was reading one person's comment that said – and I quote directly: "First time, deport them, second time shoot them in the head, won't be no third timers and the first timers will cease to exist pretty quick. Take a lesson from China on how to protect our borders."

I flagged the post as "inappropriate," and it has since been removed, but that horrible notion still exists in the mindset of that person and goodness knows who else. And the very fact that rhetoric like this exists in the year 2010 of the Common Era is frightening.

The issue of migration is complex, involving a great many economic, historical, and social factors. But you don't have to get into a jargon-filled spiel to recognize that some of the steps being taken to "correct the problem" are severely out of hand. It simply cannot be overstated that this isn't about political leanings; this is about basic human rights.

The biggest controversy in the recently-passed Arizona law is asking what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" as to a person's immigration status. Allegedly this is not going to result in racial profiling of any kind. (My response to that would normally be, "Right, and my shoes speak Welsh," but apparently shoes are part of what they're going to use to determine who looks "illegal." I wish I were joking.) Among other things, the law also makes it a fineable offense for a documented("legal") immigrant to go around without their paperwork. I've heard some people compare that to provisions that you have to carry proof of insurance with you while driving, but a police officer isn't supposed to ask proof of insurance when you're walking.

I ask this quite earnestly: How are you supposed to know by looking at someone whether or not they're an immigrant? The logical extension of this law – if it were truly being implemented fairly across the board – would be that everyone, including citizens, would have to carry proof of their citizenship or legal immigration status at all times. That's called fascism. Aren't we supposed to be against this sort of thing? Well, since they're talking very seriously about biometric ID cards, maybe I can't argue that one anymore (and for the record, I find that extremely frightening).

The question of calling people who enter the United States without authorization or overstay their visas "illegal aliens" or "illegal immigrants" or simply "illegals" versus "undocumented immigrants" is not just an issue of semantics or trying to be PC. Undocumented and unauthorized are not perfect terms, but they at least acknowledge that the nature of the imposed status is whether or not they have papers or formal authorization to be in a particular place. The word alien simply means non-citizen, but the connotation of the word is dehumanizing because it conjures up images of something downright otherworldly. Illegal alien is a term used by the INS to describe immigrants who have been convicted of felonies; it is not a blanket term for anyone residing in the country without authorization. Illegal immigrant is a relatively mainstream term, unfortunately, but it still conjures up images of criminality when immigration is a civil, not criminal, issue (although the Arizona law has changed that, which is a problem in and of itself). Of course, when "illegal" modifies the word "immigrant," at least then the main descriptor is immigrant, maintaining some semblance of the personhood of the individual(s) being described. "Illegal" as a noun, by contrast, completely dehumanizes them and implies that the very nature of the person is their "illegality."

A Republican congressional candidate recently asked, without irony, "If I can microchip my dog, why can't I microchip an illegal?" This shows just how dehumanizing "illegal" as a noun can be, and this is where the rhetoric gets really dangerous. In almost every instance of human rights abuse, the oppressed persons are described as having been "treated like animals." When you look at how easy it is to jump from immigrants to dogs, are we going to then associate them instead with cattle? With attitudes like that, is it any wonder that folks like the aforementioned guy who wants to take a cue from China on immigration policy can be so quick to forget that immigrants, authorized or not, are human beings? Who's next on the list of people it's going to be okay to talk about like this?

This issue is personal for me in the sense that I know several undocumented students (that's right, kids, some undocumented immigrants go to college despite the fact that they are ineligible for federal and state aid, not to mention most scholarships... and no, they aren't using any of your tax dollars to do it), and I've had the pleasure of taking an entire course about migration where we did discuss the broader issues (and yes, that's where I've learned a lot of this). But even for those of you reading for whom this is not overtly personal, many of the problems at hand have immense ramifications for everyone, not just immigrants.

This is one of the (many) reasons I marched on May Day.

"The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life." Jane Addams