What is Florida so Scared of?

Perhaps you have heard what Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum wants to get started in Florida, if not you can read here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/11/florida-arizona-illlegal-immigration-laws

This is of course part of a trend started by Arizona with their passing of immigration enforcement laws that allow cops to stop innocent people on the street to ask for proof of citizenship. The fact that this is a growing trend (20 states are trying to follow Arizona's lead) is itself surprising given all the negative feedback they received, including hometown basketball franchise, the Pheonix Suns, having made and worn special jerseys that read "Los Suns" to draw attention to the issue. And of course it further draws attention to the fact that a large part of the "illegal" immigrant community is Latino, and if you're talking about Arizona, you're talking about Mexicans. But if you're talking about Mexicans, then you should also be talking about the fact that Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California were all at one time part of Mexico! So there is a sort of psychology to Mexicans crossing the border that says "this isn't really wrong." And it isn't wrong.

A family friend pointed out to me in conversation that in Europe they have no immigration problem because all European Union members have open borders to other nations of the European Union. If you were born in Poland but suddenly get word that there are jobs aplenty in Madrid, Spain, you can hop on a train and pursue your chances of a better livelihood. Now, we're not talking about complete open borders. I, as an American citizen, can't move to Italy and get a job. And its not without disturbance, such as the 2005 riots in France involving Algerian immigrants. But on the continent of Europe, there is freedom of movement that allows, theoretically, for populations to shift towards regions with the most availability of work. Here we have an example of how to deal with the Mexican border - if you make crossing easier and legal, you eliminate the seedy side of sneaking into the States. Mexico is deeply embroiled in a drug war that could pose a threat to the US should we have a more permeable boundary, or it could provide an opportunity for the US to help get a hand on the problem by giving our law enforcement agencies better access to trouble spots in Mexico. It would also dry up the labor pool for drug cartels since law-abiding folks desperate to get to the US would no longer have to resort to being mules for cartels or paying "coyotes" (smugglers of immigrants) which also further supports criminal power.

Now Florida doesn't have to deal with being adjacent to Mexico, and Mexicans are not the only people immigrating to the US, but it bore thinking out since Arizona has been so pivotal in the debate as of late. The new twist Florida would provide is a 20 day stay in jail for immigrants who were unable to supply official documentation of their status. Our nation already has the highest rate of imprisonment of the industrialized world, our prisons are overcrowded, ineffective and have absurd recidivism. Stuffing more crap down a clogged drain never provides a solution.

I fail to see what is to fear from undocumented immigrants. If I try and look at it from the other perspective, the risks might be considered as follows: immigrants taking jobs from citizens during a recession; immigrants straining social services for which they don't contribute taxes towards; terrorism and increased crime.

I'll take these one at a time. It is true we have high unemployment, but we also have a population that is resistant towards taking certain jobs and we also have an economic system that has created the recession in the first place. Some other time I may provide a more detailed critique of capitalism, but for now, let's just say that if CEOs and upper management weren't so overpaid, we could probably have more jobs available, or even too many jobs available since the US has a very low birth rate.

Undocumented immigrants may put a slight strain on social services, or they may not. It would be hard to tell, since in reality, undocumented immigrants often do pay taxes when employed by companies that overlook citizenship. Not every "illegal" alien is a day laborer. Furthermore, we send financial aid to other countries anyway, what's the difference if we give a little aid to those who've made it to our soil?

To assume that illegal immigrants bring crime is first racist. Second, part of whatever crime they might bring is strictly due to the fact that we've made immigration so difficult that they feel forced into the illegal method of border crossing to begin with, and so they are already dipping their toes into unlawfulness. Third, a lot of the presumed crime is drug related, and that's a problem WE created by making drugs illegal. Again I'm opening a door to another debate, so I'll just quickly note that I'm not condoning or supporting drug use, but I do think it's wrong to make it illegal and it creates more crime, it creates the industry of drug production and smuggling. The more we try to contain drug proliferation, the greater the lengths cartels and dealers will go to protecting their source of income. As for terrorism, this is frankly a difficult subject but the bottom line is that you would have completely ban all travel, all tourism, permanently ground every plan and erect giant walls at every boarder and on every beach to keep out people who don't like the United States. Even then, some would still get through and you wouldn't have accomplished anything in the way of preventing domestic terrorism.

The planet was here before we were, the physical land we call the United States of America was here before we were, and in fact there were other people here before we were (I saw Gary Shandling say in an interview with Tavis Smiley that Native Americans should be in charge of immigration policy). So the idea that This Land is Our Land, apologies to Woodie, is a bit flawed. The land is there whether we are or not and the concept of telling certain people they aren't welcome is convoluted. We've created a society, and a greater community, and it's right to want to protect that, but should always be striving to perfect it and that means we can't just exclude people, that's not what democracy is about. We are in great danger of letting fear devolve into nationalist fervor and then further still to fascism.

Mop-Top Mayhem in Mesquite

By my observation, it seems that some are under the mistaken impression that it is our Constitution and Bill of Rights that give us our freedom. No, they only protect it from physical and psychological oppression. But we understandably augment these freedoms, to ensure a more functional society. But we cannot forget our inherent liberty because sometimes society is wrong and we have to buck and kick against those constraints to prevent eventual tyranny. This means taking even lighter infractions with the utmost seriousness. Such is the case in Mesquite, Texas.

It is there that a four year old boy, Taylor Pugh, is being withheld from his Pre-K class because he has grown his hair long. This violates the district dress code which claims that it is distracting to the learning environment. Before commenting, I would like to state that having read several articles on these events I find it unclear whether it is the child or the parents who refuse the hair cut (though it is clear, the boy likes it uncut). Either way, since he is so young, it falls to the parents for the final decision, and ultimately they are the ones being critiqued. Two issues demand analysis regarding this affair: the validity of dress codes, and personal freedom.

Dress codes do serve a purpose. I was subject to one myself as a student in a Catholic high school. However, that was a private institution and the dress code was a part of the education style, a point of discipline and formality gearing us for the perceived rigors of college, and not an effort to mold us according to mainstream notions of appearance. Agree or disagree with the intent, it was a private school and so personal rights were never violated; attending was a choice. The Mesquite school in question is public. In public schools, a dress code has been thought to benefit the student body. The problem of gang colors is often given as the reason. Some public schools use simple uniforms and this immediately hinders overt shows of economic and social status, which could potentially shield children from some of the cruelty they inflict on each other. Limiting sexually suggestive clothing seems reasonable if for no other reason than preventing minors from becoming targets for sexual predators. So those are a few scenarios for which I can tolerate a dress code – I wouldn’t demand it myself; I merely concede that there are reasons for implementation. Of course I haven’t even scratched the growing occurrence of LGBT students butting heads with school administrations regarding their clothing, but we’ll leave that aside since the student currently being persecuted is only four years of age, and his hair length is probably not a gender statement, which is not to imply that it even would be if he were older. Yet gender equality does come into play when talking about individual liberty.

The showdown in Mesquite consists of a young boy with long hair who for several months has been sent to the library, isolated from his class with a tutor, and a mother who refuses to cut those contested locks. First, I have to say, I don’t see what is distracting about long hair (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/education/13hair.html). In a country still grappling with equality of all forms on a daily basis, shouldn’t we allow that if a girl can wear long hair to school, so can a boy? Hell, at one time it was fashionable for gentlemen of “polite society” to wear powdered wigs. I find that infinitely more distracting. You also might notice from the photo that Taylor’s is not an extreme hair style – though the linked article shows it in a pony tail in an effort to mitigate the administration’s ire. In fact, the school board’s idea of a compromise was to braid the boy’s hair and pin it up in back. Again, I find that infinitely more distracting (and the parents refused this option because of time constraints – braiding it every morning – and because having tried the braids, Taylor found them painful). Lastly, I see this dispute as one of personal freedom. Dress codes may have their function, but the body, the unadorned natural body, is the last stronghold of an individual’s liberty. Why does the military shave recruits’ heads? To break down their identity so they can be re-configured into a model soldier. Militarizing and homogenizing the student body is not a good plan for preserving our glorious Republic. We have agreed to limit our freedoms so that they do not hurt the freedoms of others, but Taylor is hurting no one and as for that “distraction,” how about the “distraction” of ostracizing a young child because of his appearance (isn’t there a law against that? Aren’t we supposed to be teaching kids tolerance?), and then subjecting the entire school to the national scrutiny of news coverage by engaging in a stand-off with protective parents?

Standards of dress and grooming vary wildly by geography and time period. You could say they are a part of humanity’s cultural evolution or down right arbitrary. Given this truth, and the inalienable right of individual freedom, it hardly seems the place of a public school board to dictate what those standards should be, beyond safety concerns. Furthermore, it is the right of every parent to raise their own child without outside influence (provided they don’t harm or neglect the child). Fortunately, Taylor is young enough that his education won’t be sacrificed in any significant way, but still, he is quoted as saying that he misses his friends. I condemn the school for depriving him his rightful (and legally mandatory) education over such a paltry issue and praise his parents for taking on this fight. These are the kinds of citizens that make a democracy. It may seem small, and of course they aren’t Rosa Parks or Cesar Chavez, but the small fights still contribute to our national integrity.