If Framing Policy Discussions Were Easy, We’d Be Smarter Than A Fifth Grader
Tuesday, May 4th, 2010
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?