Michelle Bachman once again shows that whe she knows about her country's history is wrong or misguided. As an immigrant, I feel I know more about my country the United State of America than Michelle Backmann.
During the Republican debate last night, she got her facts wrong about immigration in the U.S. I mean, it's not a surprise really. Remember she consistently tells the story of her family's immigration history, which is, not surprising, wrong too. That's another issue though.
During the debate, Representative Bachmann said:
"But one thing that we do know, our immigration law worked beautifully back in the 1950s, up until the early 1960s, when people had to demonstrate that they had money in their pocket, they had no contagious diseases, they weren't a felon. They had to agree to learn to speak the English language, they had to learn American history and the Constitution.
"And the one thing they had to promise is that they would not become a burden on the American taxpayer. That's what we have to enforce."
I am not sure where she went to school (I think where my awesome former roommate who is probably ashamed his school is being represented this way), but even though I was not born here, I think I know some things better than Rep. Bachmann.
For one, I think it is important to point out that immigration to the U.S. has always been limited. Europeans, just as other immigration waves, had an easier path to migrate to the U.S. than other groups (Italians at some point see the system discriminating against them). Even Bachmann says that her family came to the East Cost in the 1800s and subsequently traveled to the Midwest. She never mentions what happened or what was happening with Native Americans then. Her European family was able to take advantage of the land-taking Natives were suffering. Of course that's never part of her story.
She also forgets that not everyone came here by choice. One, there were some people here already (i.e. Natives) who did not become citizens until the 1900s. Two, remember there were millions of Africans who were forced to come to the new republic and were forced into slavery (of course we also had indentured servants who eventually were able to buy their way out whereas African slaves could not). Then we also have people who lived in territories colonized by other nations (i.e. Mexicans) that the U.S. obtained at some point. While some Scandinavians for example only had to learn more English as a community and buy government bonds during WWII, Asian Americans and Asian immigrants were being forced into camps. Two communities in the same situation (rest of nation seeing them suspiciously because of their ethnicity/ancestry and which side their respective countries were fighting for) treated very differently. All of these people, during the European wave of immigration, became second-class citizens. Well, not exactly citizens, but yes second-class.
Bachmann says that immigration up until the 1960s worked beautifully. Maybe she was just talking about white immigrants or descendants (maybe not Italian though). I am in my early 20s, but I have met many people who lived during the 60s and before. I have also studied our history as a nation, and if I recall correctly, up until the 60s, segregation in the U.S. was legal. By then everyone else had at some point or another been enslaved, forced to live in confined territories, forced into camps, segregated by race or certain language (Spanish in California for example).
Immigrants, whether moving by choice or forced to, all make sacrifices. Immigrants before the 60s and today. Bachman is wrong to say that immigrants today do not sacrifice to come here, do not want to be part of this nation, do not want to pay taxes. She alludes to the erroneous, reckless, irresponsible, and dangerous idea that today's immigrants come with diseases, want to be a burden on the nation, do not want to learn English. She forgets that early immigrants spoke many languages, created their own enclaves, had their own newspapers, their own schools, and so on. Not very different than immigrants today, only that immigration laws are tougher for poor people and others today. And there is no land to take from Natives anymore.
I am certain Rep. Bachman does not understand how the immigration system worked prior 1960 and that she has no idea how it works today. She would fail the citizenship test were she to take it. At least her record on American history alludes to her potential test results. Of course, she does not have to take it since she is already a citizen by being born in the U.S. It is sad that such a figure like Rep. Bachmann misrepresents our history as a nation. And it is even more sad to know that her anti-immigrant sentiment within her lies can be dangerous.
Representative Michelle Bachmann needs to go back to middle school and learn some basics about immigration in the U.S. She should go back to learn our American history. I think I am going to challenge her to a debate on immigration history in the U.S. like that girl who challenged her to a debate on American History. Bachmann is a U.S. citizen, she should know this, right? An immigrant cannot do better than her I am sure.
She failed to get her facts right. She failed to even acknowledge that the immigration system is broken. She failed to provide any sensible solution to resolving anything. Representative Michelle Bachmann's "solutions" are based on her own version of history, a flawed American history.
------
Note: I did not write about many things and I apologize. I just wanted to point out how little Bachmann knows about immigration history and how her rhetoric could have disastrous consequences against immigrants today.
-------
Below is the transcript provided by
The New York Times.
HARRIS: Congresswoman, you said the fence -- that you believe the fence is fundamental as an integral part of controlling the border. Let's say that in 2012 or 2013, there's a fence, the border is secure, gasoline is $2 a gallon.
What do you do then with 11 million people, as the Speaker says, many of whom have U.S.-born children here? What do you do?
BACHMANN: Well, again, understand the context and the problem that we're dealing with.
In Mexico right now, we're dealing with narco terrorists. This is a very serious problem. To not build a border or a fence on every part of that border would be, in effect, to yield United States sovereignty not only to our nation anymore, but to yield it to another nation. That we cannot do.
One thing that the American people have said to me over and over again -- and I was just last week down in Miami. I was visiting the Bay of Pigs Museum with Cuban-Americans. I was down at the Versailles Cafe. I met with a number of people, and it's very interesting. The Hispanic-American community wants us to stop giving taxpayer- subsidized benefits to illegal aliens and benefits, and they want us to stop giving taxpayer-subsidized benefits to their children as well.
HARRIS: A quick 30-second rebuttal on the specific question.
The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?
BACHMANN: Well, that's right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.
But one thing that we do know, our immigration law worked beautifully back in the 1950s, up until the early 1960s, when people had to demonstrate that they had money in their pocket, they had no contagious diseases, they weren't a felon. They had to agree to learn to speak the English language, they had to learn American history and the Constitution.
And the one thing they had to promise is that they would not become a burden on the American taxpayer. That's what we have to enforce.
It is this anti-immigrant sentiment in the republican party that is hurting Perry. Perry signed into law the state Dream Act, giving undocumented students in-state tuition benefits, making it more likely that many immigrant, many Latin@ students will graduate from high school and go onto college. In some ways, this is also a good attempt to capture the Latin@ vote. Perry has even won over conservative journalists like Ruben Navarrete, especially because he has defended the Dream Act time after time.
