« The GOP and what Army? | Main | The Personal Side Of The Episcopalian Split »

August 24, 2006

Daniel is Wrong

An interesting discussion is going on over at the Portland Mercury about the harassment of Mexican laborers by a group called Oregonians for Immigration Reform. Featured in the discussion is one Daniel Miglavs, whose apparent split personality is confounding the people who are posting on the subject.

The so-called "split personality" has to do with the fact that he is married to a Latina woman and is rabidly anti-illegal immigration. He also has a history of involvement in the 18th Street gang. And people say I've done a philosophical 180. Perhaps if Daniel didn't look like a skinhead, this argument wouldn't be given any credibility - after all, it is possible to be against illegal immigration without being a racist.

Daniel is a blogger, mostly writing about illegal immigration these days, but he has for some time been an active, outspoken right-wing Republican. I can't say I have ever read anything he wrote that I agreed with. But then, I don't read his posts that often. He just strikes me as an extremist and that sort of thinking annoys me to no end. But I do find it fascinating that one of his more outspoken critics at the Mercury accuses Daniel of being a hater and then calls him a "fucktard," all in the same breath. We're all blind to our own faults, I suppose.

As I've written before, the immigration issue is fracturing the Republican party power structure. But in what I would consider a big but unreported story, it seems Democrats are fractured by this issue, as well. I've talked with Democrats who think Pat Buchanan, as odd as he is, makes a lot of sense on immigration (he makes a lot of sense to me, too). On the other hand, no small number of Democrats see those who want to enforce immigration laws as barely closeted racists (I think in some cases that is true). And if you really want to have your brain twist up, consider this: The founder of Oregonians for Immigration Reform is an environmental activist. The point is, this issue is damned complicated and the usual categories don't apply here.

Here's where I part ways from Daniel and Oregonians for Immigration Reform. I would never get in the faces of these laborers and try to intimidate them because if I was Mexican, I'd be coming here, too. People pursuing freedom and a better life are not at fault for taking advantage of the situation that currently exists. We might think they could come legally, but the facts contradict that. I actually know well an illegal Mexican immigrant family who are truly assets to this country and who love the United States.

A lot of our political leaders would have us believe we have two choices - either enforce existing laws or come up with new laws, and they have succeeded in convincing too many activists to march in the streets for one view or the other. As I see it, however, such things as NAFTA, tax policies, and anti-worker policies have us so badly mired in muck that no easy solution exists.

In other words, Daniel is wrong.

Daniel's goals would probably much better served if the generous donors funding Oregonians for Immigration Reform paid for him and the other picketers to fly to Washington, DC and protest in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. where they could get in the face of George W. Bush. From there, they could head over to the Capitol with their video cameras and, a la Michael Moore, ask members of Congress what they plan to do, rather than using their camera to document police harrassment and accusatory counter-protestors.

Instead, their protests, whether motivated by hate for brown people or love of country or both (or neither), are succeeding only in bringing out more hate and distracting people from a very serious issue, one that I personally find very internally conflicting and would like to rationally discuss a lot more with thinking people.

Posted by Becky at August 24, 2006 08:25 PM