U.S. v. Them

Not content with letting Senator-unelect George Allen get all the negative attention, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va, 5th Dist.) has put his ass on his shoulders by sending an anti-Muslim letter out to various constituents.

There aren't too many people, even Republicans within the 5th District, who are willing to go as far as Goode did in claiming that "American citizens [need to] wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration" to prevent a crimson tide of Middle-Easterners from taking over control of our nation. The only thing this letter proves is that Goode is a racist, a xenophobe, and, possibly an uneducated hack, since the Muslim representative from Minnesota has every right (and quite good reason) to request a Koran rather than a Bible--for that matter he could legally swear on Oxford's Unabridged Dictionary if he so wants.

No, I'm not proud to call Virgil Goode my representative--I worked for his opposition. But the stink being raised by leftists on some blogs has predominantly ignored the underlying need for immigration reform, and the reasons why Goode's immigration position finds traction with Americans from all walks, from George W. Bush to Bubba George Spradlin.

Folks, individuation is a well-known psychological process engendered by physical necessity and has documented by such great minds as Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Darwin, Stiegler, Bohm, and Erikson. It starts when we're babies learning to differentiate between ourselves and our mothers once we're out of the womb. In the effort to define who we are, we define a lot of who we are not. Similarly, every tribe or nation since the dawn of human socialization has had to define who "we" are compared to "them" when faced with other people. We use a lot of different measures to come up with those definitions: physical characteristics, language and artistic skills, geographical location, ancestry, religious beliefs, cultural values, ethics and activities are just some of the variables that get thrown into the mix.

To repeat: Every tribe or nation since the dawn of human socialization has had to define who "we" are compared to "them." That is what immigration policy is about--setting the standards that create the definition of "us." Or, in this case, U.S.

The problem as I see it is that we are stuck thinking of ourselves as a "nation of immigrants," and, thus, unlike most western hemipshere countries which are also nations of immigrants, we've never put a premium on our own national culture. A lot of people would be surprised to think of the United States as having a national culture. The basis of our culture is not built on the 20th-century marketing of McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Hollywood. It's built on the Bill of Rights, and we've been developing it for over 225 years. The freedoms granted under that document are what have allowed the McCokeywood popular culture to develop.

I don't fear Muslim input because Muslims are a very small percentage of the population--on par with Hindus, Buddhists or Jews--and Islam is not easily reconcilable to our principles of democratic government. But Judge Smails' points and mine from the afore-linked Waldo debate are born from the same set of reasonable doubts: Does American immigration policy threaten the fundamental rights guaranteed to every United States citizen by allowing those who do not share our governing principles and ideals to take part in our political system and, thereby, giving them the power to change it?

Goode's plan and attitude both blow technicolor chunks, but liberals taking irrelevant potshots at xenophobia do nothing to address the fundamental issues of immigration policy debate. A lot of the people with whom Goode's immigration ideas have traction aren't actually xenophobic--they are voters whose voices are being marginalized by new demographics within their districts and who have therefore become reasonably worried about whether these cultural differences will result in substantive changes in the laws which grant their freedoms and rule their lives. No one assuages such worry or converts anyone by using brute force and name-calling.

And, lest anyone think there's nothing to it, any part of the Constitution can be changed by a significant percentage of the voting population. It's a breathing, flexible document, so, yes, it could be strongly amended and sections repealed and replaced. If such events happen, will we still be the United States, or some other nation?

I see language as one of the issues, because 400 years of American history and centuries of law upon which these defining documents are based are written in English--how could a Spanish-speaking U.S. possibly understand the richness and depth of that legal heritage enough to respect and build on it?

Smails [and Goode] sees religion as one of the issues, because Islam does not respect cultural diversity--it does not tolerate religious freedom and it does not honor "equal rights" for all citizens in the same way we Americans understand and use that phrase. Could a politically-connected, predominantly Muslim group gain enough pull in the halls of U.S. power to use our separation clause against us by forcing us to condone their intolerance in the name of tolerance?

I invite everyone who is willing to consider the possible ramifications of open-door immigration and discuss policy measures that address it without fearmongering and fingerpointing to continue our debate here and give Waldo a well-earned rest. (51 posts! Is that a new one-day record for a single topic?)