by D. Ray Morton
So Rand Paul hasn’t been getting NEARLY as much criticism for his opinions on discrimination as he should be. Over the last few days, clips have surfaced of him aligning himself with the merits of the civil rights movement, while at the same time refusing to specifically denounce a hypotetical situation in which a private business chose not to hire someone based on race. Basically, he is all for desegregation (way to reach out on a hot button issue, Rand), but also doesn’t think the government should be able to force a business to comply with desegregation.
The question at heart is whether his fervent attitude toward keeping the national government out of making decisions for business trumps his need for desegregation to be REALLY upheld, which seems to be what he beleives. In interviews, he paints this picture where you can ideally have it both ways, where the government doesn’t pop in and tell you what you can and cant do AND businesses don't do anything dodgy to begin with. The PROBLEM though is that he’ll only denounce racism on a personal level, and considers it a “first ammendment right” if a business decides not to hire someone based on race. So HE isn’t condoning racism of any kind himself, but he wont take the steps it’s clear we need in this country to make sure no one else condones racism of any kind.
Conservatives love to call liberals idealists who dont really hone in on the real issues in this country, but they they themselves have a penchant for defending a false idealized America, one in which we are never wrong, racism shouldn’t be an issue, and any criticism is “unAmerican”. Sure, companies shouldn’t be racist. But they are in many cases, and we can’t build an arguement based on “shouldn’t”. Shouldn’t there be a government in place to enforce right and wrong? Is it really so terrible a thing to have the government there to make sure we’re all batting for the same team?
I’ve said it before- Conservatives think everything is a slippery slope. If Rand Paul’s need for the government to leave the state’s alone is so great that it allows for racist practices, that means he worries about the hypothetical takeover of big brother more than he worries about actual problems facing this country right now. “Sure, right now it’s oversight on racist hiring practices, but before you know it they’ll be putting tracker chips in our brain and giving us all the food they’ve decided we can eat in pill form and force feeding us those pills in giant stainless steel troughs!” Why don’t conservatives trust that the American people would CATCH a jump like that? We have elections, and we’d never ever let the government get to a point where our freedoms were really hindered to that extreme. The government controls things when it’s clear the states cant, or when there is a moral imperative.
Racism is not expression. It’s not speech. And racism is a problem in this country because people like Rand Paul find it to be the lesser of two evils, the other being this unfounded worry about government control. Is ANYONE really that opposed to the government telling a business not to be racist? Anyone? Free speech allows the Ku Klux Klan to walk down the street, but it doesn’t protect a business to deny someone based on ract. It just doesn’t. It’s easy for Rand Paul to be for civil rights as an ideal 40 years after it passed. It should be just as easy for him to be for the rights ingrained in the act as specific instances.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Arizona and "Papers Please"
by D. Ray Morton
I guess all we need to get the blood pumping through bipartisan veins is the passage of some “abhorrent” law that everyone can agree is a mishandling of our Constitutional rights. Arizona’s “Papers, Please” law certainly has one thing going for it, which is for at least one news cycle, the fake outrage on the right is somewhat disproportionate to the legitimate outrage from both democrats and republicans over this law.
Once again though, I have trouble finding REAL information. If you listen to enough commentary about the law, it would seem to imply police have not only the authority but the EXPECTATION to randomly stop people and ask for their proof of citizenship. A seemingly more rational explanation I heard though states that this isn’t true, and that police can only request documents if the person in question has already been under suspicion for some other illegal activity. Sure, we certainly don’t live in a world where such a suspicion can always been documented as a JUST suspicion, and maybe this law does insight racial profiling, and I’d certainly agree that this is not a positive direction for us to go, but I can’t in good conscience freak out about this bill as much as other people.
In fact, illegal immigration is a topic where I am surpassingly conservative. I have little respect or “slack” that I want to offer for people who are here illegally. It’s the “goodie two shoes” in me, that I’ve had for a long time. For instance, when I was a kid I’d always tattletale on others. Something would happen and I’d get in trouble for something. Then I’d see another kid do the exact same thing, so I’d tell the teacher. Usually then I’d get punched by the other kid who just got caught, but I’d also get reprimanded from the teacher for being a “tattletale”, as if I didn’t just help her do HER job! I never understood that unwritten rule that you don't rat on your friends for doing something wrong. My philosophy as a kid, and today, is “No! You just did something wrong! I saw it! If I am going to get in trouble for doing that exact same thing wrong, then you are too!” There is no “Well, you got by without getting caught, so bravo” to me.
So, with illegal immigration, I just can’t get comfortable defending illegal conduct. I’m not sure of the specifics in what it takes to legally be considered a citizen (i know there is a test I probably wouldn’t pass), but I always come back to the argument that being here illegally is an affront to all the people who took the time to do the process right, and any slack we give to illegals only reinforces them and delegitimizes our actual regulations for being here legally. If you and your family just cant live where you are, and you like our country that much, then have the respect to do what it takes to be here legally. And if you just cant manage that, then find another country with an easier process. And if you did get here illegally, you certainly shouldn’t act surprised or act like your freedoms are compromised if we find out.
And the law itself isn’t a HUGE slap in the face to freedom. Sure, it’s an inconvenience, but if you are not breaking the law, you should have nothing to worry about! And the law isn’t a Nazi-inspired swipe at an entire culture for personal reasons. Rather, it’s a response to the fact that we do have an illegal immigration problem in this country, some DO take advantage of the system, and while the law may not be popular, this might in fact do some good. There’d be no need for the new law if there weren’t a problem. Maybe it wasn’t the best law to make, but comparisons to Naziism imply this law was just created to fan the flame of bigotry. It wasn’t. It was created to fix an abused State.
I don’t know what law I’d put in its place. I do something. I’d find another way. But there is something to be said with how quickly this thing passed, right? I mean, who says government can’t move? And I know my criticisms of illegal immigration are more of a broad declaration against the PROBLEM, and not much of a comment on what to do with all the people who are already here illegally. That’s a different story. And I’ll get there. I guess my point is only that some good can come from laws like this, even if they aren’t everything we want them to be.
I guess all we need to get the blood pumping through bipartisan veins is the passage of some “abhorrent” law that everyone can agree is a mishandling of our Constitutional rights. Arizona’s “Papers, Please” law certainly has one thing going for it, which is for at least one news cycle, the fake outrage on the right is somewhat disproportionate to the legitimate outrage from both democrats and republicans over this law.
Once again though, I have trouble finding REAL information. If you listen to enough commentary about the law, it would seem to imply police have not only the authority but the EXPECTATION to randomly stop people and ask for their proof of citizenship. A seemingly more rational explanation I heard though states that this isn’t true, and that police can only request documents if the person in question has already been under suspicion for some other illegal activity. Sure, we certainly don’t live in a world where such a suspicion can always been documented as a JUST suspicion, and maybe this law does insight racial profiling, and I’d certainly agree that this is not a positive direction for us to go, but I can’t in good conscience freak out about this bill as much as other people.
In fact, illegal immigration is a topic where I am surpassingly conservative. I have little respect or “slack” that I want to offer for people who are here illegally. It’s the “goodie two shoes” in me, that I’ve had for a long time. For instance, when I was a kid I’d always tattletale on others. Something would happen and I’d get in trouble for something. Then I’d see another kid do the exact same thing, so I’d tell the teacher. Usually then I’d get punched by the other kid who just got caught, but I’d also get reprimanded from the teacher for being a “tattletale”, as if I didn’t just help her do HER job! I never understood that unwritten rule that you don't rat on your friends for doing something wrong. My philosophy as a kid, and today, is “No! You just did something wrong! I saw it! If I am going to get in trouble for doing that exact same thing wrong, then you are too!” There is no “Well, you got by without getting caught, so bravo” to me.
So, with illegal immigration, I just can’t get comfortable defending illegal conduct. I’m not sure of the specifics in what it takes to legally be considered a citizen (i know there is a test I probably wouldn’t pass), but I always come back to the argument that being here illegally is an affront to all the people who took the time to do the process right, and any slack we give to illegals only reinforces them and delegitimizes our actual regulations for being here legally. If you and your family just cant live where you are, and you like our country that much, then have the respect to do what it takes to be here legally. And if you just cant manage that, then find another country with an easier process. And if you did get here illegally, you certainly shouldn’t act surprised or act like your freedoms are compromised if we find out.
And the law itself isn’t a HUGE slap in the face to freedom. Sure, it’s an inconvenience, but if you are not breaking the law, you should have nothing to worry about! And the law isn’t a Nazi-inspired swipe at an entire culture for personal reasons. Rather, it’s a response to the fact that we do have an illegal immigration problem in this country, some DO take advantage of the system, and while the law may not be popular, this might in fact do some good. There’d be no need for the new law if there weren’t a problem. Maybe it wasn’t the best law to make, but comparisons to Naziism imply this law was just created to fan the flame of bigotry. It wasn’t. It was created to fix an abused State.
I don’t know what law I’d put in its place. I do something. I’d find another way. But there is something to be said with how quickly this thing passed, right? I mean, who says government can’t move? And I know my criticisms of illegal immigration are more of a broad declaration against the PROBLEM, and not much of a comment on what to do with all the people who are already here illegally. That’s a different story. And I’ll get there. I guess my point is only that some good can come from laws like this, even if they aren’t everything we want them to be.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)