Dekker Dreyer
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Friday 27 April 2012
If your faith, color, or sexuality doesn’t match up with regional ideals, that simple notion of “States’ Rights” is a life sentence of oppression, poverty, and abuse.

Are States’ Rights More Important Than Human Rights?

Article image

“If you don’t like it here, move!” This phrase has been used by pundits, politicians, and overzealous religious leaders in the United States for as long as I can remember. It used to be reserved for people who “hate America” but lately it’s taking an ominous turn that prods disenfranchised citizens to become refugees from their own home states. I’ve been seeing it more and more in online comments as the nationwide battle over women’s reproductive rights, gay marriage, race equality, and religious freedom blazes its way through the primary season and into the general election. The popular sentiment appears to be turning toward an America made up of a disjointed patchwork of equality laws. An America where if you don’t “fit in” it’s your own fault. An America where “States’ Rights” reign supreme.

Ron Paul has built much of his grassroots mystique around this notion and it sounds good to people on both sides of the political spectrum that feel their local values shouldn’t be dictated by someone in Washington. It sounds great to everyone but those outside of the local majority. If your faith, color, or sexuality doesn’t match up with regional ideals, that simple notion of “States’ Rights” is a life sentence of oppression, poverty, and abuse. States’ rights is more than a combination of words, it’s a tool used by racists and zealots to, like petulant children, throw fits against the will of the American majority in favor of local traditions.

Perhaps the most famous stand off in States’ Rights was the fallout from Brown vs. The Board of Education. In May of 1957 the Supreme Court declared racially segregated schools to be unconstitutional. In September of that same year nine black students attempted to enter their new High School for the first time. They were met by the Arkansas National Guard blocking their entry on orders of Governor Orval Faubus. President Eisenhower warned the Governor to remove the Guard and comply with the court’s ruling. When he didn’t, Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army to protect those nine children from their state’s own government. I’m proud that on that day our federal authority was able to stand up to Arkansas and meet military force with military force to defend innocent children. I fear a day when we’d have to watch, helpless, as a single state decides to take up arms against its own people again.

States’ Rights” was also used to support a glut of atrocious civil-rights movement legislation like California’s (overturned) Proposition 14, which made it legal to racially discriminate in the sale of homes. It was used to raise the Confederate flag, a symbol of shame and bloodshed from a dark time in our nation’s history, over several state capitals, and it’s being used today to strip Americans of the legal protections they’ve enjoyed for decades.

Two modern examples of States’ Rights being used as an attack on ethnic minorities are the numerous citizenship checkpoints which dot the interior of South-Western states and Arizona’s identification check laws enacted in 2010 which allows police officers to demand proof of citizenship from any person at any time. When my wife and I were stopped on a recent drive through New Mexico so that we could have our citizenship checked our hearts sank for every person living in that state who doesn’t “look” American. Their daily experience is built around the type of racial exceptionalism that hasn’t been so publicly flaunted since the time of Jim Crow.

This debate doesn’t just affect ethnic minorities. We’ve already started to see waves of women crossing state borders to seek reproductive healthcare. This year several states have enacted or proposed laws against women’s rights, including restricting access to RU-486 “morning after” pills and some inventive anti-abortion legislation. In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant recently signed a bill into law that would further threaten the state’s only licensed abortion clinic and make victims of violent sexual crime resulting in pregnancy consider unsafe alternatives.

When we read these headlines we have to consider what it means to us in other parts of the country. Do those people really want to live under those conditions? The answer is no, in fact 58% of the people of the state of Mississippi rejected similar legislation last year. Despite the will of the people the government of Mississippi is thumbing its nose at those who live there in pursuit of its own agenda.

For many there’s no escape. The facts are that 22% of the women of Mississippi live below the poverty line and Mississippi ranks in the bottom 10 of college graduation rates by state. They have neither the means, nor the support, to relocate themselves and their loved ones to a place that respects their way of life. This is why it’s so important that we don’t give up on the federal system. It may not be perfect, but it’s the only weapon we have to put pressure on rogue states that blatantly attack the values that we hold dear as a united people.

It’s simple to write off states like Arizona, New Mexico, Mississippi, and every other place on the map that fills the gap between the coasts as “Red States” and somehow less of a problem for those of us who dwell on the Pacific or in the North East, but doing that generalizes people in need. Not every person in those states is represented by their government and the less we recognize the daily struggle of outsiders in their own communities the less ground we cover in making social progress. We need to fight for the people in those states who can’t afford to move. We need to fight for the people who shouldn’t have to move. It’s our responsibility to make sure their rights are protected as Americans. The more we grow complacent toward the idea of individual states having sovereign authority to oppress our fellow citizens the harder we’re making the lives of the people who are working for change in their local areas. The next time you hear someone advocating for States’ Rights, ask them where they stand on human rights.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Dekker Dreyer

Dekker Dreyer is an award-winning filmmaker, visual artist, and activist. He is a member of the Stevens Institute of Technology Board of Communications and head of the progressive media production company Fringe Majority.

Top Stories

13 comments on "Are States’ Rights More Important Than Human Rights?"

Riconui

May 04, 2012 1:57pm

I would venture a guess that the downturn in the economy has had a significant effect in the numbers of illegals coming north, but the dynamics of the situation have changed little.

Make no mistake, I work in the building trades and as a white person should feel aggrieved that much of my prospective work is going to my little brown brothers from Central America. But I can see enough of this situation that I hold no grievance with these workers. THEY ARE HERE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN INVITED HERE. In spite of all the negative yammering about the ills of the illegals and the horrors it is causing our culture, there is still a market for their labor. There are still a sufficient number of employers that are not just willing to employ them but seem to prefer them, and here is the shocker; IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR MUCH CHEAPER. In some cases, employers will stiff (as in not pay) illegals because they know they can. In others they will actually pay them but less than what they had originally contracted for because, clearly, illegals are not going to seek legal remedy.

The old saw about illegals draining our precious state and federal resources is mostly bullshit. Few illegals are going to expose themselves to official anything for fear of deportation and the hassle of having to cross the border again, (and again and again and again). The ones who utilize phony SSI numbers end up dropping some portion of their earnings into a fund they have exactly zero chance of ever recovering. Just chalk that up to the price of working in America.

I've got an idea. Do you really want to create a dent in the numbers of border jumpers? Have the Federal government arrest the CEOs of Tyson Foods, Con-Agra, Monsanto, ADM, Hormel and a few select other large industrial operations that rely on illegals to do the crappy industrial work they provide. Tell them that when their corporate operations are CERTIFIABLY clear of ALL illegals workers, they will then be offered bail, (to be tried later on subverting the Federal labor laws they have routinely been violating). I can just about guarantee that by the next day, the border will be as quiet as a church on Monday morning. The biggest impulse driving the desire for illegals to come here is; the shitty economy in their own country, (an issue that needs to be addressed, but some other time), and the fact that there is a standing invitation, offered by these mega-farmers and related industries, for these workers to come north, risk the border, live like serfs outside the law and make more money than you could ever dream of in Mexico or Guatemala and actually be able to afford the clothes that your cousins back home are making for pennies an item.

I have no bitch with the workers. I stand with workers everywhere, legal or not. There is a clear economic incentive for these large corporations to have these people here and offering their labor on a black market. The workers are not the problem, these corporations and their codified avarice is.

And this; How often in the history of this nation, when we have a downturn in the economy, the first people to feel the heat are immigrants. Once upon a time, it was the Irish, (and other Catholics generally), the Italians, the Germans. On my coast it was the Chinese. It's the Jews, and more recently it's the Muslims. Always blame the immigrants. It's an old and very tired American script that never seems to go out of style.

weneedrevolution

April 29, 2012 5:30pm

My question is, what happens to actual Mexican tourists in Arizona? Do they put them in handcuffs and deport them?

Yesca_Again

April 28, 2012 2:09pm

For the record I am a 'Chicano' of the ‘70s. Been an Altar boy, Boy Scout & Eagle Scout, attended 'Devil Pup Marine' training (way before the Scouts went Homo phobic), a Viet Nam Vet, a college grad, a tax payer, political activist, home owner, etc. all the things I was expected to be by our great American society.

So this state's rights vs. ...? What is this about? Not really about the ones who come up with these ‘laws’ & pass them or those that enforce them, the police. But you & me, the ones who find this so offensive, that the best we can do is bitch about it, online even.

As for the ‘peaceful’ protests against SB 1070 etc, what kind of joke are we convincing ourselves with? As a brown man whose father lived through the ‘Great Depression’ & WWII and the ‘50’s, I understand & accept ‘white guilt trip’ as part of my American Dream experience. See if this was ‘black’ people being treated as such well whoa be tide we’d be talking a whole different lexicon of words & actions.

Being brown ain’t quite the thing most of America can perceive or relate to, even though as in California, we are 40% to 60% of the population, in every economic strata and about in every family. An aside: California has had and enforces an circa 1930’s ID law, just to walk on the sidewalk. No one talks out loud about it, no one is affronted by it. Here we are in 2012. This isn’t a new attack by any means or definition.

Oh, least we over look another certain fact, this California ‘ID law’ was not about Mexicans, Asians or blacks, at the time it was to keep the poor ‘white Okies’ out, talk about hating your own

Yet our Declaration of Independence always states, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…’ How come my government still allows the ‘citizens’ of each state to be treated not equal? How come you & me do? Equality and/or equity for one must be the same for all, if it is to have worth and/or purpose. When do we become strong? There are only two kinds of power in the world. The first is ‘real’ power of which there is very little, the other is ‘assumed’ power which is whatever you can get away with. For me enough is enough.

State rights are important, our national history exemplifies this repeatedly, however it does shines brightest when the Federal Government not only mandated but enforced one national definition of certain inalienable rights. I vaguely recall a civil war being fought for something of that nature. Not the slavery stuff that came towards the end of the conflict. What shall we do?

History does repeat itself, but we here & now can actually decide to make things right. Not only by words, mumbled in private, or posted online, but by real world, brick & mortar world actions, confrontations & pain. The courage of our convictions, the intrinsic worth of our freedom & liberty are at hand. Why should America remain lacking or wanting for not being what we all know we can & should be already.

Imagine the meaning of ‘America the Beautiful’ then, with our defines, not the 2%ers. Forget not that throughout our history there have been those who stood alone against the wind, without them I fear where we would be now. They kept us from the abyss, will we?

Once the Republican Party was for ‘all men’ now for some & the same for the Democratic Party in reverse. This isn’t about political adjectives but the content of our American nature our substance as a people, not citizen but mere human beings struggling for a better way to meet tomorrow. Let’s wake up roaring with fortitude, strength, courage & insight to our context.

Is it only about citizenship, or it is about how free are you, and the breath of your liberty.

God don't bless America! WE, the people ... DO!

Diane.paul@broa...

April 28, 2012 9:57am

I will not submit to identity checks, and if I am thrown in jail for it, so be it. Each time one of us submits to UnAmerican acts we hand them not just our individual rights, but those of others.

Katzmaan

April 28, 2012 8:11am

Once again I point out that that Yankee act of aggression should have settled this whole mess but all we did was set ourselves up to have to decide it later. Since 2000 we have been increasingly divided as a country and those in power use this to continue to divide people presently. Just as the KKK used the light skinned blck people to convince black people in the south that one was better than say your darker cousin. In New Orleans they have whats called the paper bag test if you are the color of a brown paper bag then you are Creole if not your nothing get the picture lol. What we have to do is avoid this war that's coming as even idiots you know understand its on its way to us.

Kathleen Matta

April 27, 2012 3:17pm

New Mexico does not check for" aliens". Our police are for state and local coverage. I'm APPALLED to be lumped in with ARIZONA. We are one of the few states that allow drivers license application with the use of a utility bill to validate residency. We believe driving with a license and insurance is safer than not. We do not ask your immigration status. We may have a republican governor, but we have a democratic legislature. We voted blue (for Obama) in 2008, so how do we get the red state label. Santa Fe has declared itself a sactuary city. Really, Mr. Dreyer, I'm not sure why you were stopped in New Mexico, but your residency would not have been checked unless you came through a border check point. I'm requesting an APOLOGY! Human Rights are the most IMPORTANT.

dekkerdreyer

April 27, 2012 7:18pm

I don't answer comments or follow up to articles I've written on third party sites, but in this instance I felt the need to clarify. The checkpoint I encountered was on Interstate 10 and we had never crossed into Mexico. You are correct in that NM has a much better track record of legislation, even at the federal level, in consideration to the border and the treatment of illegals. However, in the context of the article I am relaying a personal story about what life must be like for certain groups in the greater area. NM is unfortunately geographically sandwiched between TX and AZ, the major sponsors and co-sponsors of the vast majority of border legislation and arguably the most vocal states about their desire to allocate state funding to bolster federal border protection. This influences the racial climate of the entire region and has contributed to labels such as the ACLU's descriptive "Constitution Free Zone". It is no secret that those states, along with Nevada (who attempted to implement a bill similar to AZ's profiling law) are all very vocal about wanting to control their immigrant populations to the point of the irrational. Unfortunately I wasn't checked in AZ, NV, or TX. I was stopped in interior NM.

dwdallam

April 27, 2012 2:36pm

The problem is that sometimes the Federal government doesn't push hard enough on these issues. Eisenhower should have called in the 101st Airborne and arrested Orval Faubus, charged him with a Federal felony, and imprisoned him for a few years. that would have sent the message that this sort of law breaking wouldn't be tolerated and might have stopped the 60s atrocities against blacks also. You cut off the head and the body falls into line. This couldn't be a more appropriate action given the authoritarian mind of conservatives like Faubus. Using authority against them is the most sure way to gain compliance.

The problem with Arizona, however, is far and away from desegregation in the 50s.

First, Arizona hasn't broken any laws, yet. That's why they are going to court.

Second, immigrants are not being segregated or denied their rights (if they are, then that should be addressed; and illegals do have rights under our constitution). You can support a law like Arizona's and continue to be pro immigration.

Third, some immigrants are taking advantage of specific laws, like born in America means you are an American Citizen.

This infuriates some people. However, if you put the shoe on the other foot, we'd do the exact same thing given the political system and poverty in Mexico. Remember that crossing the border illegally is, well, illegal. Having a child in the USA and the fact that that child becomes a US citizen upon being born, regardless of the status of his or her parents, is not. It's a conflicting law, for sure, but a little compassion allows us to see why Mexicans do it. Mexicans want a better life for their children, just like all humans. Some are willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to have a child in the US, for citizenship reasons. I really can't blame them.

One more thing also. People from the USA go to Mexico because Mexico has universal healthcare. Interesting isn't it?

"According to the site www.internationalliving.com, health care in Mexico is described as very good to excellent while being highly affordable, with every medium to large city in Mexico having at least one first-rate hospital. In fact, some California insurers sell health insurance policies that require members to go to Mexico for health care where costs are 40% lower.[8] Some of Mexico's top-rate hospitals are internationally accredited.[9] Residents of USA, particularly those living near the Mexican border, now routinely cross the border into Mexico for medical care.[10] Popular specialties include dentistry and plastic surgery. Mexican dentists often charge 20 to 25 percent of US prices,[11] while other procedures typically cost a third what they would cost in the US.[10] The www.internationalliving.com site states that on average, an office visit with a doctor—specialists included—will cost about US$25, an overnight stay in a private hospital room costs about $35, and a visit to a dentist for teeth cleaning costs about $20. Some 40,000 to 80,000 American seniors spend their retirement years in Mexico with a considerable number receiving nursing home and health care." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Mexico)

WorkingMan2059

April 27, 2012 3:16pm

Excuse me, but Faubus was a New Deal Democrat, as were many of those who opposed civil rights in the 50s and 60s, not a conservative. At that time, the Republicans were the champions of civil rights. In fact Dr. Martin Luther King was a registered Republican.

dwdallam

April 28, 2012 4:03pm

The southern democrats were socially conservative--and obviously that is what I'm talking about. And to say that "democrats" were not the champions of civil rights is an egregious error. Just because someone is a democrat doesn't mean they are liberal socially.

In aggregate percentages republicans favored the Civil Rights act more than democrats, but that's because of Southern Democrats--again which were socially conservative. My truck is with conservatives, not democrats vs republicans.

In other words, northern democrats favored the Civil Rights act in a higher percentage than did republicans. The same is true in the south where democrats favored the Civil Rights Act more than republicans, although both were dismal in their support. In fact, no republicans in the south favored the act.

But to say that the
"Republicans were the champion of civil rights" is untrue if you mean that Democrats were not. But that's not my point anyway.

Here's a breakdown by region:

The original House version in "yea, nay" format:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

David Laing

April 27, 2012 2:19pm

Personally, I would willingly subject myself to a check of my citizenship status, just as I gratefully submit to my bank's conscientious identity checks to ensure that my transactions are in fact legitimately made by me and not by some impostor. Citizenship checks ensure that I, as a taxpayer, am not put in a position of having to pay for social benefits for undocumented aliens who claim rights to benefits that rightfully belong only to citizens. There really should be no argument about this. Theft is theft, and if we are to have a just society, we need to do what is necessary to protect ourselves against it.

dwdallam

April 27, 2012 2:30pm

That is wrong! Being checked on the street does not stop you as a "taxpayer' from paying for illegal benefits. It only does that if they are caught and deported.

What would stop it is mandatory proof of citizenship upon application of any benefits, including being hired for work. A law imprisoning employers who knowingly employee illegals would also immediately stop whatever problem there is.

Margie Lachman

April 27, 2012 9:39am

The federal government has been vilified by the Right Wingers for a long time and it only gets worse. Federal government has an important role to play in America. Besides federal roads and highways, hospitals, schools, etc. we need federal funding for these and many other parts of our states' facilities and structures. Perhaps the protection of human rights trumps everything else.Without protection for human rights we will be no better than China where everyone must bow to the government's agenda.