However, insurance companies have qualifications for their clients. If someone has caused or just been involved in numerous car accidents, an insurance company may not wish to represent them. In a way, immigrants are like insurance clients. --The next sentence is expressed in an extremist way so please understand I have nothing against immigrants personally, or anyone of any different background in any sense. This blog is not meant to address the issue of illegal immigration either.-- By the insurance metaphor, immigrants may be seen as the people that caused the accident while society has a slightly different attitude toward immigrants' children as if they were the drivers that were simply involved in an accident. Particular insurance companies may wish to not provide services to either while other companies will provide for those that were not at fault and, by this metaphor, the children of immigrants.
Allow me to clarify. What I am trying to propose is the question whether everyone deserves freedom of expression by the First Amendment the moment they step on American soil, or if they should dutifully become a citizen (though a sort of definition of "citizen" would have to be determined; is it based on documentation or a person's lifestyle?) before having the advantage of such freedoms, and if other citizens that have been here longer will truly respect the immigrants' acquired right. Such a topic seems more an issue of societal beliefs than law, but these issues leak into the minds of the justices deciding the cases...
The New York Times posted an article this past Saturday entitled "Where Education and Assimilation Collide." This article discusses the issue of race in schools being an issue of the past while the real issue today is whether a student speaks English or not. At Hylton High in Washington DC, "the calm in the hallways belies resentments simmering among students who barely know one another. They readily label one another "stupid" or "racist." The tensions have at times erupted into walkouts and cafeteria fights, including one in which immigrant students tore an American flag off the wall and black students responded by shouting, "Go back to your own country!"" As poignantly inserted by the author of the article, the issue of black versus white is not even the issue at this high school. The issue is whether a student is "American" enough. While the Texas v. Johnson case determined that using the flag to express one's opinion, whether it is a positive or negative one, is protected by the First Amendment, it must be pondered what the outcome and opinions may have been had the flag been burned by a recent immigrant rather than an American citizen. The article does not say what was done in response to the outburst, but as a minor committed the defamation the insurance metaphor probably would have applied once more; the child is simply involved in the accident. It is actually their parents' fault.
If a middle-age immigrant had been in a public area, such as a bank, and tore down an American flag shouting something in their first language, the first thought of many of the witnesses would probably be that this person is a terrorist. It is rather sad, but it is true. While the children of immigrants are less likely to receive such criticism, they do deal with others exiling them for their different culture and inability to speak "America's language"...which is ironic considering the US does not actually have a national language...
It has been tested by cases and verified that immigrants have freedom of speech, yet there have also been cases showing immigrants can be deported for exercising that "right." All in all, it seems that the US government as well as US citizens are more willing to provide rights to those that have been here relatively longer than others...and exhibit an American lifestyle rather than one representative of their heritage.
In the Harisiades v. Shaughnessy Supreme Court case in 1952, the issue at hand was the Alien Registration Act that Congress had passed in 1940. It required anyone that had ever been a communist to be deported. This went against the First Amendment as the plaintiffs were being punished for exercising free speech as well as their right to freely assemble. However, the three plaintiffs were immigrants.
According to Patrick Young, a professor at Hofstra Law School, this case was one of political infringement. He states the positions of the three ex-communists in a rather entertaining way; "So we have Harisiades, the hard core communist, Mrs. Coleman, who apparently joined for the parties, and Mascitti, who was anti-communist. Yet all of them were ordered deported. For something they had done before the law prohibiting it had been passed." Harisiades came to America with his father when he was thirteen, married, and had two children. Both his wife and his children were US citizens. Mascitti legally entered the US when he was 16, married another resident alien and they had a child. Mrs. Coleman was legally admitted to the US when she was thirteen as well, married a US citizen, and had three children that were citizens by birth. These people came to the US in 1916, 1920, and 1914, respectively. The law was passed in 1940 and this Supreme Court ruling was in 1953. Once again, I feel obligated to point out that the one thing these three had in common was that they were immigrants. The Supreme Court ruling: the First Amendment claim was denied.
The justices dissenting held that, "a resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. He therefore may not be deprived either by the National Government or by any state of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This is where things get fuzzy regarding free speech of "Americans" versus free speech of immigrants...The Supreme Court considered an immigrant to have the same rights as a naturally-born citizen. Such rights include those named under the First Amendment. All right. That sounds good....but why on earth is this stated within the dissenting opinion rather than the concurring decision of the court? The dissenting opinion of the Harisiades case believes the concurring opinion to regard once-dangerous immigrants to remain dangerous indefinitely. By such a rule, if a flag was burned by an immigrant from a terrorist nation, such an act could be considered by the court as evidence as their continued danger. Clearly there is discretion between immigrants and citizens as flag burning by a citizen has been tried and proven to produce no such imminent danger. So then America isn't truly the land of the free. It is the land of the free for those that have been here long enough and whose ancestors have already fought the battle for equal rights.
The students at Hylton High are separated from the rest of the school so that their classes can be focused on teaching them English so they can pass state exams. Other students look down on them because they do not belong. Little do these immigrant students know that the accident they have been involved in will be a reoccurring event, persuading the government's "insurance policy" to possibly refuse coverage.
This video showcases the difference today between racism and anti-immigration...Sorry, it does touch on illegal immigration but does mention speech and being a born citizen. And the person mocking a Mexican is of Spanish descent.
With respect to US law (not necessarily state law), the term "citizen" has a fairly well determined legal definition with benefits and requirements (for admittance and upon the citizens both). For immigrants, a legal process--naturalization--must occur before they are citizens. Immigrants are not necessarily resident aliens--many become citizens.
ReplyDeleteYour question would be worded better: what is the difference between resident aliens' (as opposed to immigrants) 1st Amendment rights and citizens'? (The Court decided this, in part, in Harisiades v. Shaughnessy).
There are a number of other Supreme Court cases involving forced expulsion of resident alien Communists from that same period. I would have liked to see a bit more about the free speech/political speech claims made in those cases (if any). In those cases, the Court develops more reasoning on why the federal government can toss resident aliens (basically, for whatever reason Congress can construe as "in the public interest" [in this case, being an "active" member of the Communist party sufficed]).
Questions about public perception of immigrants (resident alien or citizen) and their children and societally-enforced restrictions on their speech, I think, are different from the resident alien speech cases: the government is not restricting speech in the former.
As a side note:
I dispute the point you made in the statement, "If a middle-age immigrant had been in a public area, such as a bank, and tore down an American flag shouting something in their first language, the first thought of many of the witnesses would probably be that this person is a terrorist." It depends on the physical appearance of the immigrant, the language used, and the locality of the dissident speech. If the immigrant were, say, an English-speaking, caucasian Canadian in a town like Wall, South Dakota (home of Wall Drug Store) the assumption would be that there is an irate tourist in town.
Wow, Stephanie, this really makes me think! I had never considered the idea that citizens might have more free speech rights than immigrants. Of course one can go on and on about the "melting pot" that is America, but prejudices still occur.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to both you and Josh, I took your use of "immigrant" as someone who is now a citizen (and might have children with American citizenship), but might have prejudice against them because they still practice customs from their home country. Was I correct in interpreting it this way? This might solve the immigrant vs. resident alien quandry.
Something that comes to my mind about immigrants is that, for many, the main reason they decided to come to America is because of our freedom of speech. Oppression in Communist countries, for example, could lead many to want a place of refuge to express themselves.
I wholly agree that citizens of the United States, immigrants or not, should receive the same rights as natural citizens. I'd be interested to know, do you feel illegal immigrants are protected by the same free speech rights as legal citizens?
Stephanie, your blog posting is a good starting point for the discussion of who is and who is not under the jurisdiction of constitutional rights. I understand your argument but I do not necessarily agree with it. People within the United States never mind “illegal immigrants” are not afforded the same rights equally. To think that we all live in an equal society is faulty and dangerous. Yes, there is a black man in the White House but this does nothing to address educational disparities in public education. Racial, class and gender particularities ought to be included in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the US Constitution was written while slavery was the norm of the day. I often cringe when people claim we should return to the good old days of our founding fathers. If that were so, I would probably be stripped away of any rights I maintain as a US citizen. Secondly, the US was founded in territory that did not necessarily belong to them. Native Americans did not lay a claim to any land either but their intent was that land was to be enjoyed and protected by everyone, not to capitalize of it. There’s a concept called denizenship which states that people by virtue who reside within a specific location, have a right to call that place home and should be afforded the “rights” that everyone else maintains. Indeed, immigrants who trek the border in search of the dollar utopia are not US citizens but this does not grant us the right to dehumanize them and separate them from their families. In fact, xenophobic narratives only ignore the factors for migration in the first place many of which the US is responsible for including US-backed civil wars in South America, free trade agreements in Mexico which lower wages and employee rights. I do not hesitate when stating that immigrants including undocumented for that matter should be afforded the same rights as any US citizen. If anything, during economic recessions, we tend to point the finger at the most vulnerable instead of holding those who sit in air-conditioned offices along Wall Street accountable for their greed. The discussion should address our role in perpetuating the flow of people. We should not be the final say.
Sara, I interpreted immigrant as you did. Sorry, Josh, I should have clarified. I personally believe anyone in the US should be protected by our laws if they are arrested or held accountable for something. I am not so sure where I stand on any benefits besides that, though, such as education health, etc for illegal immigrants.
ReplyDelete