If Framing Policy Discussions Were Easy, We’d Be Smarter Than A Fifth Grader
A facebook friend of mine joined this group - this was when I grabbed this screenshot. When I see groups like this, I get a churny feeling in my stomach. Why? Because the conversation around this policy is loud, noisy and poorly framed, all of which distract from framing, passing and implementing effective public policy.
“You can’t enter any other country illegally…”
Oh really? I beg to differ. Note that I am NOT advocating crossing borders illegally. What I am questioning is this author’s assertion. I am sure that other individuals can cross other countries’ borders illegally - why would other countries have statutes on the books that address this issue? We recently had two journalists detained in North Korea after they crossed illegally. So yes, you CAN enter any other country illegally.
“…why is it racism when you can do it here!”
Why is crossing into the United States illegally racism? That’s the question as presented by this group’s moderator(s). Aside from that fact that this question is completely illogical / nonsensical, discussing this issue on the basis of racism is wrong for several reasons.
First, I don’t think I’ve seen anyone assert that racism is entering into a country illegally. From the Free Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, a definition of racism:
1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
2. racial prejudice or discrimination.
If I’m wrong, please let me know and link it in your comment! Aside from the logical fallacy of the group’s argument, I think those who have concerns about Arizona’s recent law are concerned about the “reasonable suspicion” standard and how it will be applied in practice. If that’s the case, why not frame the question to reflect that?
Does anyone else see a bigger issue than racism? Is this social justice’s spotted owl? It’s possible to have the conversation include racial issues as well as other issues - why not include all of the relevant issues? What would the conversation look like then?
Tags: Arizona, Illegal Immigration, police power, public policy, reasonable suspicion standard, state power
May 4th, 2010 at 3:24 am
To me what’s scariest about this law is that we’re giving the government a heck of a lot of power that they, previously, didn’t have–at least local authorities didn’t have. If legal residents have to carry around their papers, what about naturalized citizens? People who have student, tourist or work visas? Where do you draw the line once you start making the law different for one group of people than another? Where’s the outrage we saw about healthcare and government just a few months ago, applied to this issue? I agree with you that there’s a WHOLE LOT of stuff being dragged into this debate that doesn’t belong, but then, the whole reason the law was enacted in the first place is because a WHOLE LOT of stuff that doesn’t belong in the pages of law was introduced there. Good post An, someone could write a dissertation on the rhetoric around just this one issue.
May 4th, 2010 at 3:45 am
Exactly, Sara Ines. The problem I’m having is that all of debate focuses on racism, which is a red herring. The real issue is government power, what it means and how it affects all of us - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet.
Those discussing this as “racism” are actually silencing / shushing the voice of those who have white privilege. Being a member, friend, or supporter of an oppressed group does not give one the right to become an oppressor.
By focusing on race, we’re missing the bigger picture, one that affects all Americans and those in our country, regardless of legality.
This is much, much bigger than race and I think we should focus on the higher order bit, not the red herring.
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I want to start from the basic and one issue at a time: I thought the facebook page’s message was clear, it’s about illegal immigration. Meaning if you cross the american border without legal papers/document, you are an illegal immigrant.
And the word CAN there… I don’t think what the creator meant here is ABLE, but CAN as in you do it without having to face negative consequences.
June 22nd, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Rachael - that’s exactly my point re: illegal immigration. There’s no mention of race in your comment. My perspective is that race shouldn’t be part of the conversation.
If the creator meant “able” s/he should have used that word instead of “can” - words matter, in that they enable us to come to a common, not disparate, understanding. Thanks for the comment!
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:13 am
Hey, thanks for the quick response
Yes, I haven’t touched the race issue because I want to discuss one issue at a time… actually it’s more to so that I don’t get confused 
But do you agree tho with the definition of “illegal immigrant” there?
I said in my comment the creator did NOT mean “able” when he/she wrote “can”. I think what she meant is “should not”. But anyway, if the creator couldn’t then readers should decipher the statement wisely. “…cant enter any country illegally.” Its like “you can’t swear at your mom”, it actually means “u should not sweat at your mom”, i mean of course you can but you should understand the context.
June 30th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Rachel - sorry for the latency. Anyone on US soil deserves due process, regardless of his or her country’s citizenship. If said individual is found, under due process, to be in the country illegally, they should pay the consequences. If they are found to be living in the country and found to be in said country illegally, then they may be considered an illegal immigrant, unless there are other legal factors that need to be considered before coming to a conclusion. I use “found” in terms of legal proceedings, to be clear.
I think you raise a good point regarding diction. However, I still think that authors should use the words that mean what the author means to minimize ambiguity, especially in a controversial topic such as this one.