Border Security is NOT Racism-Part 1

By William L. Garvin

Leading up to President Obama’s speech on immigration reform, liberal columnists pushed a repetitive theme (frequently using identical wording) trying to make their divisive point. Their overall strategy is to attack Arizona’s SB 1070 and those who support it as racist. Will it work?

Democrat Representative Linda Sanchez said “There’s a concerted effort behind promoting these kinds of laws on a state by state basis by people who have ties to white supremacy groups.” There are approximately twenty states who are proposing legislation similar to that of Arizona. Americans continue to support the Arizona law by a two-to-one margin. Seventy percent of Arizonans support the law and that includes 12 percent of second-generation Latinos and 30 percent of fourth-generation Latinos according to a Latino Decisions poll. Are they all under the thumb of “white supremacy groups”?

The second thrust in the “racist” argument is to deliberately fail to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. In Peter O’Dowd’s article for National Public Radio, he quotes Jesse Hernandez, a second-generation Latino from Phoenix: “We don’t have time to be marching down the street waving the Mexican flag saying we want rights, because you know what? We did it the right way, and we have rights.” Mr. Hernandez’s Mexican-born parents waited in line for years in order to enter the U.S. legally. However, Ruben Navarrette, columnist and immigration rights advocate, refers to SB 1070 as the “Mexican Removal Act.” In the interest of journalistic accuracy, he should refer to it as the “Illegal Mexican Removal Act.” He and his followers then attempt to hedge their bets saying SB 1070 may not be racist in content, but it is certainly not “race neutral.”

There were also numerous commentaries that resurrected the “Chandler Roundup,” a five day immigration sweep conducted by the Chandler, Arizona Police Department in 1999. Great attention is paid to the fact that 29 plaintiffs received a settlement of $400,000 but there is scant notice of the 400 plus legal deportations. There is also no notice of the reprimand given to the police chief for the manner in which he conducted the sweep or that Arizona’s Attorney General was Janet Napolitano!

Another consistent claim in the liberal articles is that in the 1930’s the U.S. had rounded up and deported somewhere between one and two million Mexicans back to Mexico. Furthermore, “over sixty percent of those deported were U.S. citizens”! The latter has supposedly been determined by “researchers.” When you start off with “between one and two million” you know that the scientific method and empirical research went out the window. Apparently the “sixty percent” estimate came from Francisco Balderrama, a professor of “Chicano Studies” at Cal State, Los Angeles. A review of his book states: “By combining extensive archival research with oral history testimony, the authors have created a compelling narrative that blends individual recollections with scholarly interpretation.” However, much of his research was based on Mexican consulate records which are notoriously suspect for their lack of authenticity. Much like global warming data, “scholarly interpretation” cuts a wide swath and is easily influenced by the author’s ideology.

For argument’s sake, let’s accept the data. If the 40% of “legal” deportations were all women, each woman would have to have birthed 1.5 children in the U.S. Very unlikely. If 20% were male and 20% female (equally unlikely), each woman would have birthed three children in the U.S. If we’re talking 10% female and 30% male (much more likely), we are talking about six children per woman. That’s quite a heavy burden, in more ways than one.

Another recurring theme was that the Arizona law is too broad or vague: identification may be required for “trespassing” or “being at a social gathering where the music is too loud.” Trespassing is specifically listed in the law but it is neither vague nor trivial. Arizona ranchers have had property stolen, animals killed, butchered and barbecued. A rancher has been murdered. A national park is declared “off limits.” Trespassing is NOT a quixotic addition. A word search of the text of the law comes up empty for “music” and “gathering.” If municipal codes are broad or vague, deal with them. Until you do, expect them to be enforced.

It’s abundantly clear that when liberals say “comprehensive immigration reform,” they mean “amnesty.” If you oppose amnesty, you’re a racist. If you oppose illegal immigration and support border security, you’re a “racist.” You are told it’s because you are “insecure” and “feel threatened” or are “anti-Mexican.” In reality, it’s because you think “illegal” means “illegal” and you already know the meaning of “is”!