Andrea Batista Schlesinger
Blacks Against Immigrants? Don’t Believe the Conservative Hype
(this piece cross posted at Afro-Netizen.com. It is co-written by Andrea Batista Schlesinger and Mark Winston Griffith)
There’s a corrosive idea currently being spread by the conservative right. Designed to enlist African Americans in a race battle against immigrants by intentionally exploiting current economic anxieties, The Manhattan Institute’s recent publication of “The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates,” by Steven Malanga, argues that black people are fed up with illegal immigrants taking their jobs, committing crime in their neighborhoods, and messing up their schools.
Before this toxic narrative seeps further down into the public debate, it’s important to set the record straight on the Manhattan Institute and their opposition to a policy agenda that promotes the best interests of Black, Latino and White communities alike.
Like a petty gossip trying to instigate a school yard cat fight, the Manhattan Institute uses the Malanga article to pose as a friend and ally to black folk by whispering warnings about Latino people out to get them. But what’s the skin in the game for them? It certainly isn’t a deep commitment to improving the prospects of the African-American community.
The Manhattan Institute is the well oiled think tank based here in New York City that published “The Bell Curve” by Charles Murray, arguing that African-Americans have lower IQ’s. It’s the hatchery of “welfare reform,”, “’compassionate’ conservatism,” the end of open admissions at CUNY, and the “broken windows theory” that formed the basis of Rudy Giuliani’s crime-fighting strategy of aggressive policing of poor communities of color. The Manhattan Institute, like much of the conservative movement, has identified the problem of cities to be the moral deficiency of the dark and poor people who inhabit them. To paraphrase the words of Manhattan Institute “scholar” Heather MacDonald, if the poor had “bourgeoisie values”, they wouldn’t be poor.
Malanga’s intentions are consistent with this view. In his article he argues that Latinos have brought violence, in the same way conservatives have depicted African-Africans as criminal animals wreaking havoc in New York City. He interviews one Black parent frustrated with the overwhelming Latino presence in his child’s school, with no ironic or historic sense of the cultural arguments against integration.
Malanga concludes that Black people are fed up with their own leadership for opposing “immigrant restrictions” and makes a call to action, suggesting that “Blacks could play a far more decisive role, though, if their political leaders felt threatened enough to pursue tougher immigration policies actively.”
And there we have it. Malanga’s article isn’t about improving African-American neighborhoods, schools or prospects – or even immigration policies that could strengthen African-American communities. It’s about enlisting African-Americans in the politics of a racist, draconian position on immigration. Nothing more, nothing less.
Malanga tips his hand when he quotes a political scientist as saying that “some Republicans have positions on immigration that would resonate in the black community, but only a few have tried to take advantage of black anger of immigration.” Take advantage is right. The Manhattan Institute and their conservative movement must believe it is in their best interests to devise a political strategy based on black and Latino division, lest they face an America in which all of those on the fringes of our new economy – from African Americans to laid off white workers – demand something better than a sorry agenda of tax cutting for the wealthy and trade policy for the few. Why else would this article hint with glee at the misguided idea that there is no Black-Latino political coalition?
Fear mongering is the last gasp of the ideologically bankrupt. Rather than try to hawk an unrealistic policy of mass deportation, or actually devise a way to bring millions of immigrants out of the shadows by providing a road to legal status and employment protection, it’s easier to try to convince socially and economically vulnerable voters that immigrants are looking to take their jobs, victimize them, and overtake their schools.
One thing is for sure. The immigration policy status quo isn’t working for anyone, no matter what community you live in. Race baiting and racial scapegoating won’t change that. The only immigration policy that will allow this nation to move forward is one that squarely addresses the legal status and the working conditions of the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are here, a policy that recognizes that no matter what color you may be, our fates are all inextricably bound.
Posted at 7:42 AM, Mar 27, 2008 in Immigration | Media | Racial Justice | Permalink | Comments (6)
Comments
I agree with your immigration position. Have you noticed, however, that it has not yet gathered significant political support? Is it time to ask why not?
The hostility to the huge US population of undocumented immigrants is, I believe, widespread if sometimes overstated. My own intuition is that many whites and blacks feel threatened by wage and benefits competition. I've seen such divisiveness among NTC's poorest people (on pantry & shelter lines) and believe it's shared by others on the shorter end of NYC's economic spectrum. Thus, while the Manhattan Institute is (in my view) a sponsor of such divisions, those reported in the Malenga article are real. (Do you remember Herman Badillo's remarks of a few years ago?)
Other than saying that fear mongering is a "last refuge," how do you think, should we address these divisions? Where have progressive immigration strategies been working?
Posted by: Daniel Millstone | March 27, 2008 09:43 AM
Daniel. I appreciate your comments. I especially appreciate them because they relate directly to the work that DMI has engaged in for the last three years: making the case that America's current and aspiring middle class, including African Americans, have a shared economic interest in progressive immigration policy. You can find all of that work at www.drummajorinstitute.org/immigration. In all of our work is the acknowledgement that underlying economic anxiety is what fuels much of the tension, but that the solution that benefits all of us is to bring immigrants out of the shadows, recognizing the role they play in the economy but the harm that results to American workers when immigrants are easily exploited. We've offered the principles behind any resolution to the untenable current situation, and have evaluated legislation as it has been introduced to see how it stacks up.
But the point we raise is that the Manhattan Institute isn't interested in the betterment of African-American communities. In fact, it is African-American communities who have born disproportionately the impact of their policies . And therefore, we have to wonder why they are invested in this issue.
Posted by: Andrea Batista Schlesinger | March 27, 2008 05:37 PM
I believe the friction that may exist between the 2 communities is less race based and more as a result of immigrants undercutting the wages that afro-americans have traditionaly
been afforded as low income workers.
Bottom line is hispanics will work for lower wages. Until immigrants are given legal status in this country, the abuse will continue.
Posted by: julie sperber | March 28, 2008 12:44 PM
Well, according to a Pew poll, blacks and Hispanics have a significantly better view of black-Hispanic relations than whites.
Posted by: Alon Levy | March 28, 2008 01:46 PM
Even if, which is a quite the qualifier, Malanga's article is correct in characterizing the African-American community's view of the current immigration debate; it is the article's title which infuriates me most. To imply that a difference of opinion on one issue has caused years of interracial relations to dissipate is inflammatory and just plain wrong.
Sure there have been issues between the African American and Hispanic communities in the past and it would be niiave to pretend that they have gone away, but from a policy standpoint, much more unites these two communities, and in fact most marginalized communities in this nation, than divides them. Both communities want safe neighborhoods for their children to play in, equal pay for equal work, access to health care and excellent education for their children.
In the future, Malanga should be careful not to overgeneralize points of contention in American society or boil them down to some clichéd representation of race relations that fails to look past the surface. Whether or not these two communities agree on every issue, there is one thing everyone wants; better lives for themselves and their children. And there are certainly policies out there that can do that for everyone.
Posted by: Hana Greenberg | March 31, 2008 02:53 PM
Amazing! Progressive?? I think not.
It is completely un-American to allow millions of people to invade our country, receive
free medical and educational benefits, citizenship for their babies, while funneling money
to Mexico and demanding more benefits from a country which they have entered illegally.
One of my dear friends lives separated from her Canadian husband, another was deported
to Australia with her newborn and Australian husband due to a visa problem, but come across the Rio Grande illegally, demand rights and receive them.
Outrageous!!!
50,000 Americans have been murdered since 9/11 by illegals.
Visit with those families and my neighbor who lost her family and is not a paraplegic
in an automobile accident where a drunk illegal hit them head on.
It's interesting to note that he had 4 previous DUI's and not driver's license.
The middle class is "for" giving more illegals benefits.
Doesn't the middle class want some social security benefits???
Who do you think pays for the education of these illegals and for their
emergency room visits?
Progressive? This website is anything but progressive. Marxist perhaps, but not progressive.
Posted by: Kelsey Williams | April 16, 2008 12:27 PM