Showing posts with label national identity card. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national identity card. Show all posts
2/01/2010
American Born
The term "American-born" for me recalls populist, protectionist slogans like "Buy American," used back in the distant '80s to urge people to support Detroit. As if Americans created within the nation's borders were in some way superior to other kinds of people in general, and other kinds of citizens in particular. There is, of course, an actual legal distinction between naturalized citizens and native-born ones; it has frustrated Governor Schwarzenegger's presidential aspirations. But "American-born" somehow makes me think of the more suspect songs in the Bruce Springsteen and John Cougar Mellencamp repertoire.
The notion of citizenship and its meaning came up over the last couple of days because the #haiti twitter feed has been full of links to this article, wondering why the US media is not up in arms about the staggering statistic that 4,000 Americans are missing in Haiti. This figure is comparable to the total loss of life as a result of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and significantly greater than the total loss of life in the destruction of 9/11. For now I'll leave aside the evident and absurd presumption that lost American lives are worth more than others. The original twitterer expressed his fear that the lack of media coverage "is due to racism." By the time Huffpo ran their story about how little coverage these 4,000 deaths have gotten, Andrew Rasiej had either come up with a few extra possibilities ("Is this being under-reported because it's too painful? Is it because of racism? Is it because of lack of information?") or he was misquoted. Either way, I'm afraid his very first tweet nailed it. Certainly visiting diplomats, aid workers and consultants of various races, holding US passports, were among the victims of the earthquake. But the vast majority of the American dead, I'm afraid, will prove to be those of Haitian origin who had navigated the long and arduous legal quagmire that is the United States' naturalization process, particularly the version of it typically confronted by the dark-skinned and the kreyol-speaking. Others will be the sons and daughters of those immigrants, born in America, but not often considered "American-born." No matter what kind of American you are, being of poor, black, and Caribbean origin still diminishes the meaning of your life, and death.
Then, this morning, in the venerable New York Times, I encountered a usage of the "American-born" term quite different from the one I thought I understood. The Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, a wanted fugitive who has stashed himself somewhere in Yemen, was described in both the first graph and the photo caption as an "American-born cleric." Al-Awlaki was allegedly pally with many nasty and misguided people: three of the 9/11 bombers, murderer and renegade army Major Nidal Malik Hasan and, most recently, underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Someone please help me: what does "American-born" mean in this context? I can't see any good reason why the NYT shouldn't simply use the word "American" here, unless this comes from a secret in-house style-sheet code and is meant to let the cognoscenti know that Al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship. Do they describe all Americans resident in foreign lands as "American-born?" Perhaps. Two weeks ago James Thompson was described as "the American-born author, who lives in Finland." But in the Al-Awlaki case it seems to me to be some sort of patriotic face-saving distancing technique, the other side of the populist coin, as in: he may be American-born, but he's no American.... Help me out here, I'd really like to know.
The notion of citizenship and its meaning came up over the last couple of days because the #haiti twitter feed has been full of links to this article, wondering why the US media is not up in arms about the staggering statistic that 4,000 Americans are missing in Haiti. This figure is comparable to the total loss of life as a result of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and significantly greater than the total loss of life in the destruction of 9/11. For now I'll leave aside the evident and absurd presumption that lost American lives are worth more than others. The original twitterer expressed his fear that the lack of media coverage "is due to racism." By the time Huffpo ran their story about how little coverage these 4,000 deaths have gotten, Andrew Rasiej had either come up with a few extra possibilities ("Is this being under-reported because it's too painful? Is it because of racism? Is it because of lack of information?") or he was misquoted. Either way, I'm afraid his very first tweet nailed it. Certainly visiting diplomats, aid workers and consultants of various races, holding US passports, were among the victims of the earthquake. But the vast majority of the American dead, I'm afraid, will prove to be those of Haitian origin who had navigated the long and arduous legal quagmire that is the United States' naturalization process, particularly the version of it typically confronted by the dark-skinned and the kreyol-speaking. Others will be the sons and daughters of those immigrants, born in America, but not often considered "American-born." No matter what kind of American you are, being of poor, black, and Caribbean origin still diminishes the meaning of your life, and death.
Then, this morning, in the venerable New York Times, I encountered a usage of the "American-born" term quite different from the one I thought I understood. The Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, a wanted fugitive who has stashed himself somewhere in Yemen, was described in both the first graph and the photo caption as an "American-born cleric." Al-Awlaki was allegedly pally with many nasty and misguided people: three of the 9/11 bombers, murderer and renegade army Major Nidal Malik Hasan and, most recently, underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Someone please help me: what does "American-born" mean in this context? I can't see any good reason why the NYT shouldn't simply use the word "American" here, unless this comes from a secret in-house style-sheet code and is meant to let the cognoscenti know that Al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship. Do they describe all Americans resident in foreign lands as "American-born?" Perhaps. Two weeks ago James Thompson was described as "the American-born author, who lives in Finland." But in the Al-Awlaki case it seems to me to be some sort of patriotic face-saving distancing technique, the other side of the populist coin, as in: he may be American-born, but he's no American.... Help me out here, I'd really like to know.
10/13/2008
Richard Hussein Fleming
No disrespect to my late grandfather, who gave me my middle initial, but until at least the election (I'll see how I like it, and then decide whether to make the change permanent) I'm changing my name to Richard Hussein Fleming. Please show some respect, by referring to me this way in all official correspondence.
6/29/2007
Immigration Bill Update
I don't have to move to Argentina just yet. Yesterday the Senate trampled all over the immigration bill in yet another rebuke to the Bush Administration, refusing to pass it and its Trojan horse national identity card provision.... I suspect it failed thanks primarily to my rabble-rousing fax....
6/28/2007
Letter to the Senators
We don't usually pulpit around here, but if my government tells me I can't go outside and walk down to the corner bodega without a national identity card in my pocket I'm buying a vineyard in Argentina and keeping my income tax payments in a cigar box.
Here's the issue, courtesy of boing-boing and here's where you have a last chance to do something about it.
Here's what I wrote to Hil and Shoe:
My Dear Senators
The waves of noxious legislation encroaching on the personal freedoms of the American people and the grand traditions of their great nation, which began immediately after the horrors of September 11th, need to stop now. While there can be no doubt that there are those out in the world who wish to harm us, the instituting of a national-identity card requirement flies in the face of everything that this country has traditionally stood for. The forces of international terrorism will have won a great victory on the day that Americans are required to carry identity papers on their person, at all times. Should you believe that this proposed program "is not about that," you must consider its insidious potential rather than its proposed use. History tell us plainly that identity cards will inevitably be used as a tool to punish, to segregate, to intimidate and to arrest those who are already marginalized in our society.
I can imagine little that is more un-American than a national identity card. In my lifetime I have been a great traveler, and have visited more than 60 countries. In any country I have been where there was a national identity card this "required" document was used as a tool of oppression and control and considered a great nuisance and expense. Are we so arrogant as to believe that we would do it any differently?
Please support the Baucus-Tester and Grassley-Baucus amendments to the immigration bill and suppress this vile proposal.
Many Thanks
Here's the issue, courtesy of boing-boing and here's where you have a last chance to do something about it.
Here's what I wrote to Hil and Shoe:
My Dear Senators
The waves of noxious legislation encroaching on the personal freedoms of the American people and the grand traditions of their great nation, which began immediately after the horrors of September 11th, need to stop now. While there can be no doubt that there are those out in the world who wish to harm us, the instituting of a national-identity card requirement flies in the face of everything that this country has traditionally stood for. The forces of international terrorism will have won a great victory on the day that Americans are required to carry identity papers on their person, at all times. Should you believe that this proposed program "is not about that," you must consider its insidious potential rather than its proposed use. History tell us plainly that identity cards will inevitably be used as a tool to punish, to segregate, to intimidate and to arrest those who are already marginalized in our society.
I can imagine little that is more un-American than a national identity card. In my lifetime I have been a great traveler, and have visited more than 60 countries. In any country I have been where there was a national identity card this "required" document was used as a tool of oppression and control and considered a great nuisance and expense. Are we so arrogant as to believe that we would do it any differently?
Please support the Baucus-Tester and Grassley-Baucus amendments to the immigration bill and suppress this vile proposal.
Many Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)