OPINION & EDITORIAL
A question of equality
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by :
- Blair's approval rating up since war (April 16, 2003)
- Support our troops: protest (April 16, 2003)
- Anti-semitism by another name (April 24, 2003)
- Santorum deserves relief (April 29, 2003)
- All the fits that are news to print (June 3, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Can the United States unite? (September 14, 2001)
- States deny voting rights for felons (September 19, 2005)
- Government needs to improve overseas propaganda (October 28, 2001)
- Will our ideals be hijacked by fear? (November 7, 2003)
- Camp X-Ray, not Camp Grenada (November 20, 2003)
Sunday, December 2, 2001
As everyone knows and as countless politicians and commentators have reminded us recently, rights are only for us citizens.
Whoa. Back up. What?
In the United States, or at least the United States I knew before Sept.11, “citizen” was one of those general-purpose words, freely interchangeable with “resident” or “inhabitant.”
Not anymore. Now our government is protecting us citizens from you non-citizens.
I should first admit to my traditional disregard for the precise language of classification. In much of my writing, I liberally use the plural first person in something of an indifference to one’s citizenship.
When I say “our government” or “our country,” it is typically not to the exclusion of the dear readers from abroad and instead reflects my assumption that if you live here, if you pay taxes and if you aren’t trying to blow us up, you’re pretty invested in our country.
Indeed, consider our nation’s statistics. There are 28.4 million foreign-born individuals residing in the United States. Of them, about a third have become naturalized American citizens. This means that just below 19 million individuals are aliens — a full seven percent of our population. They are our neighbors, our fellow students, our professors, our co-workers, our friends.
Given the vast foreign penetration, it’s difficult for the average person to tell who among us is an upright American citizen and who is ominously lurking in our country as a guest, a refugee or a permanent resident alien.
Not all U.S. citizens have passports. Foreigners can have drivers’ licenses, even Social Security numbers. Americans have rightly and repeatedly rejected the idea of a national identification card, and most would cringe at the personal registration requirements so commonplace in Europe.
Burger King jokes aside, Americans don’t even have similar physical characteristics, nor is there a common ethnicity shared by most of the citizenry.
In contrast, I have long been impressed by the ability of a Swede to pick out another Swede from across the room with pinpoint accuracy. This skill is much more difficult for Americans united more by common principles than common heritage, since such abstractions are harder to discern at first glance.
In America, that foreign-sounding guy could very well be a U.S. citizen and that woman with the perfect Midwestern accent could actually be a foreigner. We just don’t know.
To this end, I tried valiantly to discover if Peter Jennings still maintains his quirky Canadian allegiance to the queen, but my investigation was a failure. It seems such information isn’t particularly important to the average Peter Jennings fan who regards him as simply “one of us.”
Most Americans still go about our lives — and interact with others — conscious of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Given the magnitude of the blow America suffered, we should be proud of ourselves.
But if we remain equally proud of the soaring language that expresses our nation’s ideals, why do we tolerate the government’s attempts to guard the Bill of Rights so jealously? Why is it so reasonable to suggest that John Q. Public should enjoy more fundamental rights than Fritz Jedermann?
There have always been sensible disadvantages in not being a U.S. citizen. Foreign nationals don’t vote, have longer waits in airport immigration lines and must enjoy the pleasure of occasionally interacting with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (suggested motto: “Making the IRS look downright friendly”).
But should these disadvantages also include arbitrary detention, extra judicial trials and denial of constitutional rights?
Moreover, when we condemn nations like Peru or China for subjecting our citizens to dubious military tribunals, wouldn’t our message be considerably stronger if we were to practice what we preach? Shouldn’t our push for global recognition of human rights be based on, well, global recognition of human rights?
Perhaps my critics will contend that I suffer from a case of hopeless democratic idealism.
I don’t. The hundreds of Taliban fighters being held in the Northern Alliance detention camps could simply vanish by tomorrow and I wouldn’t raise so much as an eyebrow, and I have a number of ideas for handling Osama bin Laden that may not exactly pass constitutional muster.
As I see it, these murderers can be classified very narrowly in the context of war and disposed of without so much as a blot on our Bill of Rights.
In contrast, the president’s frighteningly broad executive orders apply to seven percent of the U.S. population. In more personal terms, these new policies could be used against my friends. Or yours.
Our State Department always warns against passport theft, and I have encountered many people abroad who want desperately to become U.S. citizens.
I always thought it was because of the liberties and opportunities that exist for those who have a radiant blue passport, but I fear that one day it will be because of the threat our government poses to those who don’t.
