Anger and racism skew debate over illegal immigration

Tuesday, April 23, 1996

Mexican human rights abuses do not excuse U.S. brutalityBy Juan
Topiltzin Alvarado

After reading William J. Upton-Knittle’s viewpoint ("Goebbels’
traditions linger in immigration debate," April 17), I had to
respond to a few points he made. He, along with a lot of others who
argue the same side, is either missing the point entirely or
intentionally misdirecting his arguments away from indefensible
actions.

Let me ­ right here and now ­ concede his point that
Mexico has a horrendous record of human rights abuses against
immigrants in that country. I’ll also concede that the shooting and
brutal beating of two young Americans trying to illegally enter
Mexico at high rates of speed was cruelly wrong.

Having conceded those points, I now ask a serious and important
question: What do either of those two things have to do with the
brutal beatings of two illegal aliens (yes, I will say those words)
by two Riverside County Sheriffs? Does Mexico’s human rights record
give us leeway to have more abuses on our side of the border to
even the score? Is it pay-back time? Do two wrongs make a right? Or
is it just that, without sidetracking the issue towards these red
herrings, there is no defense for what occurred?

There are two main reasons that people come out in defense of
the sheriffs’ deputies: (1) Anger: anger at the illegal immigration
"problem," as it is presented by most media, and at the audacity of
attempting to drive a literal truckload of illegals past two
obviously inadequate border checkpoints, and (2) Racism: They are
just "dirty Mexicans," and they don’t deserve the humane treatment
that we would give to a dog.

I’m not so naïve as to think that it is so black and white,
either of those two reasons; more likely it’s the shades of gray in
between where most of the defenders lie. Neither exclusively racist
nor angry, some degree of each is part of their moral compass when
they defend such an obvious example of police brutality.

All the protests and speeches and official statements that have
come out against the beatings were not about saying that Mexico was
morally superior. It’s not! It doesn’t need to be! It doesn’t
mater! What does matter is that sworn officers of the law broke
that law. They let anger, racism and the adrenaline from the long
chase overtake their better judgment and pummeled two human beings
with their police batons.

What does matter is that, once again, the police have proven
that human rights ­ of which we boast to the world and that
allow us to hold our heads high in judgment over more abusive
countries ­ are selectively granted and do not apply to people
of color when they raise the temperature of our law enforcement
officers.

What does matter is that after seeing this brutality once again
videotaped, you have to wonder how many times this has occurred
when a video camera was not around.

Upton-Knittle complains about the use of the term "undocumented
workers," but what about his terminology? Instead, he calls them
"criminal invaders"; he says they "chose to violate the sovereignty
of another nation." With words like that, it is easy for most,
myself included, to conjure up military images of dangerous people
bent on destroying this nation from the inside (maybe that’s what
the Tijuana police were thinking when that car came barreling over
their border).

These words seem taken from the book of the ultra right-wing
militia movement. The imagery that they provoke is wrong. The
people in that truck broke the law when they crossed the border,
but they intended nothing more harmful than to find a better life,
to find a job that would pay dollars per day instead of per week
and to give their children an opportunity for a better life.

Upton-Knittle said that the "copycat" attempt to cross the
border, one week later, which resulted in several deaths, lay on
"the hands of all … who publicly defended the initial invasion
attempt." But most ­ if not all ­ of those who spoke out
about the incident were not defending the immigrants’ actions but
prosecuting the sheriff’s actions.

If the deaths of those immigrants last week lay on anyone’s
hands, they lay on all of ours. After all, we do live in the best
country that has ever existed in the known history of the world,
and we are constantly telling people that. If that doesn’t give
incentive to come here, then I don’t know what does. (No, I’m not
being sarcastic!)

Our country, even during hard times, has among the highest
average poverty level incomes, among the lowest unemployment rates
and the most freedoms enjoyed by its citizens than anywhere else.
To tell you the truth, as an American citizen, if the tables were
turned and Mexico were in our situation and we were in theirs, I
know that I wouldn’t be the only one (brown, white, black or blue)
who would try to cross the border to get a chance at a better
life.

The tables, however, are not turned, and as long as we remain
such a great country, as long as there is work to be had by a
hard-working person for less than minimum wage, as long as there
are agricultural products to be picked and buildings to be built
and houses to be cleaned and babies to be cared for and jobs to be
done that no one else will do for what they want to pay for it,
then there will always be an illegal immigration problem.

Will we, as a nation, continue to scapegoat, persecute, beat and
kill people who are, essentially, paying us a compliment by
admiring what we have and wanting it for themselves? Or will we
stop the escalating rhetoric that gets more and more violent and
try to solve the problems rationally, realize where the acceptable
numbers are and work towards them in a logical, humane way?

Alvarado is a sixth-year senior computer science and engineering
student.