by Fred
(follow us on Facebook)
Let me begin with a point that must be altogether clear: I do not think of immigration law as a simple affair.
It is not a matter of up-or-down absolutes (as is the case, say, regarding prayer in schools). It is not a matter of a sliding numerical scale, running through a continuum of subjective terms like “insufficient,” “optimal” and “excessive” (minimum wage laws, income taxes). And it is not a matter of dealing with a single event, phenomenon or accident in the most efficient and decisive way possible (global warming, oil spills). The open border debate is a bit more complicated than that.
In the realm of esoteric theory, an open border policy seems like — no pun intended — the front line in progress and democracy. One of our most precious rights is that of mobility: to cross regions, hemispheres and oceans in search of happiness, education, jobs, friendships, love, medical treatment, ideas, weird foods, life experiences, groovy photo ops. More, when one country begins the slouch toward tyranny, it is our right to collect in nearby, more liberated regions to fight back. This way neighboring countries would literally compete for an educated and civic-minded populace the way airlines and car makers would compete for market share.
But I use that odd comparison for a reason. Because — sort of the way healthy airlines and auto manufacturers breathe the same air as their inefficient, dole-funded counterparts — thriving democracies often share rivers with failing states. The secular first-world rubs shoulders with the theocratic third world. Comfortable republics lie a short ferry ride from poverty-stricken monarchies. Borders can be hostile places, and border patrol, grisly, harrowing work. The rise of jihad, human trafficking and drug cartels raises the stakes even higher.
The U.S.-Mexico border is no exception. To wit, listen to Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen explain her reasons for voting in favor of SB 1070 (the scope of which may be unclear, but the message of which is not):
The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles. Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way.
Relevance to music?
Exactly this: the community of musicians is not particularly convinced with Senator Allen’s reasoning.
In response to SB 1070 — which seems to grant all-but-unlimited detention power to the state’s various law enforcement agencies — The Sound Strike mobilized a cadre of musicians who are boycotting the state until the law is repealed. And some of these boycotts will hurt: Kanye West, Serj Tankian, Rise Against, One Day As A Lion. And now Charlie Levy, a local promoter, is feeling the pinch:
By not performing in Arizona, artists are harming the very people and places that foster free speech and the open exchange of ideas that serve to counter the closed-mindedness recently displayed by the new law. The people who will feel the negative effects of the boycott the deepest are local concert venues, including non-profit art house theaters, independent promoters, motivated fans, and the hundreds of people employed in the local music business. If the boycott continues, it is all but guaranteed that some of these venues will be forced to close their doors.
Well, yeah.
Read the article in full, but Mr. Levy’s argument might be summarized this way: “The boycott is tantamount to friendly fire, harming foremost those local businesses who identify most and would mobilize first with the anti-SB 1070 movement. So the boycott will therefore be ineffective. Indeed, counter-productive.” It’s a compelling gambit, coming from the head of a firm that will suffer direct injury from this boycott. So not only does Mr. Levy’s argument unravel under scrutiny, it goes much further than that and edifies the opposing view. Under threat of financial injury, or even business closure, or personal bankruptcy, those in Mr. Levy’s position will be forced rise up from within, and appeal to local politicians to find another solution to the question of immigration, a solution other than SB 1070. Motivating the law’s opposition is exactly the point of the boycott. Out-of-state musicians have no other arrow in their quiver. It is no secret that Kanye West is opposed to SB 1070. A politically-motivated concert will only preach to the converted. What the converted need to do is act. And what will motivate them to act is the threat of monetary damage. Not another ad spot. Not another concert.
And it should go without mention that — if they feel too politically outnumbered to campaign for the law’s repeal — Mr. Levy and other injured parties are invited to leave the state, drive down property values, and contribute further — however incrementally — to Arizona’s musical decline. Remember: civilization is neutralized by music in the same way light from a lamp is neutralized by daylight.
The present correspondent does not mean for this essay to speak for or against SB 1070. The law is old news. You’ve probably made up your mind by now. But if you oppose the law, support the boycott.
