Let the witch hunt begin. Are you now or have you ever been an illegal immigrant?

That line is immediately followed by these words:

Are any of your friends illegal? Relatives?

So you are welcome to keep reading, and then to add your thoughts on the thread.  Or you can simply use the link above and go read Herbert.  If you do even that, this diary will have served its primary purpose.

And now for more.
Herbert's column was "inspired" (although that particular word seems inappropriate) by listening to the NPR debate from Iowa - perhaps it would be better to say it was provoked, given how offended he was.  He was especially offended by Steve Inskeep's question about an applicant for child care whose documents might not be in order:

Mr. Inskeep didn't make clear what should trigger the suspicions of such oh-so-solidly American parents, causing them to scrutinize an applicant's papers with a thoroughness worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Might it be a skin tone darker than Paris Hilton's? Or maybe an accent, like that of my Aunt Lottie, who came here from Barbados?

You wouldn't have wanted to face my family if you were some rat who tried to turn in my Aunt Lottie.

Herbert is complimentary of the responses by the Democrats, especially that of Mrs. Clinton, which you can read in the column.  He pivots from her remarks to note

Enlisting ordinary Americans in a nationwide hunt for so-called illegals is a recipe for violence and hysteria, a guarantee of tragedy.

"When I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That's what I see. How do you like that? A hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children."

When a woman wears a burqa, said Mr. Savage, "She's doing it to spit in your face. She's saying, 'You white moron, you, I'm going to kill you if I can.'"

And to what can this lead?  Herbert warns us that a call for such a national dragnet for people who look or sound a certain way will have consequences:

That kind of insidious leadership helps drive people to irrational fury over neighbors speaking Spanish at a barbecue, or a Muslim co-worker competing for a coveted promotion, or a schoolteacher with a Hispanic surname who gives a failing grade to little Sally.

The U.S. has a chance in this presidential campaign to emulate the best in its history, not the worst. I have a recommendation for anyone who thinks a witch hunt for undocumented immigrants is a good idea:

Don't go there.

As I said, a terrific column.

But I also said I would offer a few thoughts of my own.  If you are not interested in these, feel free to stop reading.

I think the immigration issue has reached a point as defining of our nature as a nation as has the issue of denial of civil liberties.  We are on the point of becoming a nation dominated by fear.  And our moves to respond to the fostering of that fear for political and economic reasons seems to ignore our history, of how badly we have hurt ourselves in similar efforts in the past.  Perhaps that is why some don't want to emphasize learning about our history, because they might make the logical connections with how much being espoused now is wrong.

Remember, our past includes the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams (which makes Romney's partial quote of an Adams letter out of context perhaps somewhat ironic).  It includes the Palmer Red Raids.   It includes our tragic internment of those of Japanese background during World War II.  It includes the McCarthyite abuses - and in this latter case it is worth remembering that there are some on the public seen for whom McCarthy is still a hero, which is one reason I refuse to give much credit to someone like Pat Buchanan even when he is right on the Iraq War.  

I have listed only four of the more notable examples I could cite - there are many more.  Yet how many Americans even recall these?  Do they know that in the case of the Japanese that J. Edgar Hoover did not think the roundup was necessary, that many people profited from their dislocation?  

Can we connect the lynching of a Sikh after 9-11 because someone thought he looked like an Arab with the kinds of hysteria being fomented today?  

Let me be clear on something.  Those who would seek to divide America into "us" versus "them" are walking on a dangerous path.  IT does not matter what basis is used for that division.  We here do recognize that course when it is trod by religious extremists of the right, or political extremists who say that those who disagree with the president are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  We rightly reject such rhetoric.  We should also acknowledge when the rhetoric of those on our side is equally wrong, as unfortunately happens from time to time at this website.  I also reject the idea that all who are Republicans are evil or venal, just like the having a "D" listed after the name of an officer holder or aspirant is no guarantee of that person's sensibility on any particular issue.

I accept that there will be at times political calculations about the positions one takes, that in order to influence policy one has to achieve and hold political office.  But I also understand the frustration of those whose justifiable concerns get left aside because of some political calculus, as some transgendered members of this community have recently reminded us.  

There are those who argue for the Democrats taking positions to remove the issue of immigration from the table for the current cycle. It seems to me that they are repeating a tragic strategy from earlier this decade - was not the same argument used to justify passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2002?  Did it really remove that issue from the political battles, even for the cycle in which it occurred? If you think so, remember what happened to Max Cleland.  And what of the long-term interests of this nation?  Absent AUMF would we be in the mess in which this country now finds itself, squandering our treasure and the lives of our military on an endeavors whose justification has changed multiple times and which now seems endless?  Do we not see similar political calculations even among the Democratic pretenders to the throne (okay, that's not fair, they are not all crypto-royalists, although I have yet to see a consistent denunciation of the use of signing statements to expand the powers of the Federal executive)?

I remember once in a conversation with a Democratic Congressman whom I admire that he worried that I would have so many litmus tests that eventually he would fail one.   It is not that I have multiple litmus tests.  I have but one -  do you uphold the basic ideals of the Constitution and Bill of Rights?  Do you evaluate the positions you take in light of the long-term interests of preserving this nation as a democratic republic which seeks to maximize liberty, whose language says "person" and not "citizen" when it speaks of the guarantee of rights?  Are you willing to stand for the principle of liberty and freedom being maximized for all, whether or not they are citizens, but merely because they are humans?  Are you willing to oppose the diminution of rights for anyone, whether because of religion or lack therefor, sexual orientation, national origin, immigration status, gender, "race," political affiliation, economic standing?   In other words, do you stand for the principle that ALL of the people should be included, that the first step of exclusion, towards the dividing into "us" versus "them" is the first step on the road to a hell, one that has the possibility of an Hobbesian outcome of the war of every man against every other man?

Herbert's piece got me thinking, as his writing often does.  I chose to share these thoughts in the hope that others will respond with theirs.

Peace.  

Comments