Guest Post: There’s More Than One Way for a Person to Be Illegal

Note: Ed Cara at Grumbles & Rumbles and Alexandra Brodky at Feministing (as well as many others) covered the issue of the rape and kidnapping victim who was arrested from a feminist, anti-rape perspective. One perspective that I found to be missing from the conversation is that of the homeless. When I engaged on the matter, it seemed that many did not quite grasp what it is like to be homeless — “Why did she lie about living with her parents?” and similar questions were posed. Here to clarify the matter is Daniel Samuelson of The Writing Engine (full disclosure: he is my partner).

Many (if not all) of us know about the fabulous arguments against using the term “illegals” to refer to people. We know about the noble struggles of immigrants: how many fight poverty as well as oppressive legal and cultural systems to survive and even thrive. They are not the only people called illegal.

I am not an immigrant. Despite that, I have been illegal. Why? I’m poor and, up until very recently, I was homeless*. While there are long and exhaustive reports about the issues surrounding the laws on being homeless as well as high profile cases of cities making it illegal to be homeless (since rescinded), there is another level to the illegality of homelessness, one that isn’t so readily apparent.

To the police, the homeless are, from the moment they see us, not people but undesirable and inhuman parasites. We cannot trust the police or any other authority that derives power from the state. Accordingly, we avoid the police if we can. Outsiders and law-breakers become the people who feed us, who give us a place to sleep that isn’t cold and uncomfortable, and, sometimes, who give us a way to escape. That escape can be a sympathetic ear or substances that numb the pain and help us relax. We start by being told we’re illegal and eventually become illegal since criminals are the ones will still treat us as human.

Peachtree Pine Homeless Shelter
Peachtree Pine Homeless Shelter

Technically, there are programs that exist to help the homeless. Most welfare programs are not in that category. Since Clinton’s reforms, many state welfare programs require that applicants have a permanent address and a job (SNAP is one of the few exceptions). Since welfare programs are administered on the state rather than the federal level, the laws differ and are difficult to generalize. This also makes it nearly impossible for the homeless to move from any particular area since their welfare access is dependent on them staying in a situation that already disadvantages them (i.e. has left them homeless).

As for shelters, homelessness has been increasing at a breakneck pace since the 2008 housing crash. The shelters in the US were never intended to take on so many people all at once. Many of the states hit hardest by the crisis are cutting support for shelters. Other programs rely on the homeless knowing about them, which we frequently don’t. Government programs here in the US are inherently adversarial as well – we need to prove that we’re homeless, hungry, disabled.

Depending on the city, if you say you’re homeless, the authorities will drive you to the edge of town and drop you off or incarcerate you instead. When it comes to filing charges, there is no option for “transient” on government forms; you must provide an address and a phone number.

This brings us to the woman who was arrested for allegedly lying about her whereabouts. There are two likely scenarios. Either the woman provided her parents’ address (i.e. the one that she uses as contact information since she has no other information to provide), which is a fairly common scenario for homeless people, or she lives at her parents’ home on occasion and would or could not for the same reasons that she is homeless. Whichever it is, her arrest reiterates what the homeless know: that we are illegal and therefore treated differently under the law.

* Due to the laws that make it difficult for immigrants to stay employed and care for themselves, the two groups certainly intersect.

Guest Post: There’s More Than One Way for a Person to Be Illegal
{advertisement}

Virginia Republican Makes Excellent Pro-Choice Argument

The other week, Senator Steve Martin (R – Virginia) received a generic pro-choice Valentine’s Day greeting from the Virginia Pro-Choice Coalition. While being offended and taking action due to that offense is widely reviled among conservatives as a dirty liberal trait, the Senator decided to take to Facebook and express his disgust.

Since the English option doesn't work, I used French, the most liberal of languages.
Since the English option doesn’t work, I used French, the most liberal of languages.

I don’t expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive. However, once a child does exist in your womb, I’m not going to assume a right to kill it just because the child’s host (some refer to them as mothers) doesn’t want it to remain alive.

Martin later changed the wording to read “the bearer of the child,” but the damage was done, of course. He also failed to correct his post to reflect his voting record, which strongly suggests that he is indeed invested in preventing access to contraception.

I, for one, am happy that Martin used that term. As he expressed in his Facebook post that he is “not actually sure what that [the word ‘unintentional’] means”, I will assume that he has issues looking up terms. Taking into account that he also has trouble with with facts (he thought Planned Parenthood and the KKK were both created by the Democratic Party), I will happily cite some definitions for the word “host” for him.

As Martin is a Baptist rather than a Catholic, I believe it is safe for me to set aside the ecclesiastical definition of “host” (as well as the computer-related and secondary biological ones) and stick to these four.

  1. A person who receives or entertains a guest, particularly into the host’s home.
    This definition would imply that abortion rights are well within Republican policies on home defense and stand your ground. One might argue that aborting a fetus causes less pain and harm overall than allowing the fetus to develop into a person then shooting them to death.
  2. A person or organization responsible for running an event.
    Generally speaking, running an event, especially a private one, gives a person or organization full rights over who is in attendance. Republicans are known for supporting the rights of private organizations to be as exclusive as they wish.
  3. A moderator or master of ceremonies for a performance.
    As a veteran of many a well- and poorly-moderated panel and events emceed by individuals of similarly-varying quality, I can tell you that a good mod or MC cannot be afraid to kick out the more unwanted types.

    Choose life!
    Choose life!

  4. A cell or organism which harbors another organism or biological entity, usually a parasite.
    I have never heard a Republican — or anyone, for that matter — argue that any living organism ought to be made to harbor any other living organism, even if ejection of the latter from the host would cause its death.

Today, according to the New York Daily News, the pro-choice coalition plans to protest at the gallery of the Virginia State by sporting shirts reading “NOT A HOST.” If any pregnant people show up to join the group, I’d hope they would wear shirts reading “HOST BY CHOICE.”

Virginia Republican Makes Excellent Pro-Choice Argument

It’s a Slow News Day. Let’s Mock Medical Conditions!

Disclaimer: Before you ask “Well, what did you expect, it’s Fox News?”, read this. Even if it fails to sway you, remember that asking that is condescendingly pretending that I’m the last person on Earth to understand that Fox News is full of crap.

In case you missed it, Facebook recently launched the ability for users of the American English version of its product to specify gender options other than Male or Female as well as to specify “they” pronouns be used instead of “he” or “she.” This is a long time coming and a huge step forward for people whose identities are erased or ignored. It also helps to prevent dysphoria in those who might be triggered by misgendering.

There are a lot of pros, as far as I can see, and virtually no cons. The only arguments against it that I have heard are Christianity-based (I don’t think the Bible mentions Facebook, either — deactivate your accounts, literalists) or sneers related to “pandering to liberal sensibilities” (one person’s pandering is another’s basic human acknowledgement, I suppose).

Then, there’s Fox News. Their anchors’ main argument seems to be “we do not know what these things are, therefore they could not possibly be legitimate.” Not to be that guy, but how is an argument from ignorance ever close to a sound one to make?

Two-Gender has been an identity on more continents than that man has ever visited and for longer than he will live.

As bad as the uninformed and racist Dan Gainor is, Tucker Carlson, Clayton Morris, and Todd Starnes take the cake on treating their lack of knowledge as holy edict against people’s identities and realities.

After reporting the story, host Elisabeth Hasselbeck threw to the network’s Clayton Morris, who she called “the male.” “No, I changed mine to intersex,” Morris joked in response. Tucker Carlson told “Fox and Friends” viewers that one of the new options was “intersex, whatever that is.”

Intersex. “Whatever that is.” Which is a medical condition.

As for Starnes? He took to Facebook itself.

Photo via Media Matters
Photo via Media Matters

Hilariously, it’s the God that he invokes which, if that deity existed, would be responsible for having created the intersex babies that are born every day, as well as the assigned-binary-gender-at-birth people who grow up into non-binary-identified people and those who are assigned one gender at birth but actually are another.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a self-described proud person with celiac. Until my second year of college, I had no idea celiac existed. Did her body not suffer the ill effects of gluten consumption until 2006 because I didn’t know it was a thing? My knee disease, synovial osteochondromatosis, is so rare and unknown that my primary care physician wasn’t aware of it when I presented her with my symptoms. Does that mean the bits of cartilage in my knee are figments of my imagination?

Arguments from ignorance aside, it comes down to basic human courtesy, kindness, and respect. Let’s say you, for whatever reason, don’t want to know about the identities of people who aren’t cisgender. Maybe you’re a Christian or otherwise really, really dedicated to the gender binary. You don’t want to look at the myriad guides that have been posted online and don’t care to learn. Even in said situation, how exactly does it harm you that Facebook has more than two options for gender identity? Moreover, what benefit do you stand to gain when you berate and belittle people’s identities on national television because a website moved in a direction you don’t and don’t care to understand?

It appears that when being a cissexist jerk just isn’t enough in some people’s quest to be the worst person that ever lived, adding racism, mockery of medical conditions, and overall scumminess is the answer.

It’s a Slow News Day. Let’s Mock Medical Conditions!

CVS, Tobacco, & Well-Done PR Moves

It’s quite easy for a corporation to make a move that doesn’t affect their bottom line too badly and is along the lines of public opinion. They make the move, garner the praise, and enjoy the defense of the general public against the few who raise their voices against said move.

This is what happened last week, when CVS announced that it would stop selling tobacco products. The move was almost universally hailed. As a former employee, I saw the problems with such a move, which was framed by CVS as made out of concern for people’s health. Update: Fred McCoy pointed out another piece critical of the move that breaks down the numbers fairly starkly: CVS’s decision to stop selling cigarettes has got to be one of the easiest it ever made.

US cigarette sales have fallen nearly a third between 2003 and 2013, and just 18% of adults in the US smoke

CVS Caremark Corp reports that its stores will lose an estimated $2 billion in sales from tobacco products this year, but it still expects to make $132.9 billion in total sales. Moreover, if sales fall further—and they will, barring a sudden resurgence of smoking in America—it’s a smart PR move for the company to pull the products while it still seems like a sacrifice.

It plans to replace lost tobacco sales by selling anti-smoking aids like nicotine patches.

only 4% of US tobacco sales occurred in drugstores in 2012, compared to 16% in convenience stores, 21% in specialist shops, and 48% in gas stations

Though he was far from the only person to criticize my piece, David Gorski aka Orac over at Science Blogs articulated many of the criticisms I received in a way that I found accessible, so I will address them by quoting him here.

It is a story about knee jerk responses to which we all (myself included) fall prey.

My post was actually the result of much talking, thinking, and writing about the working poor I’ve done in the years since my employment with CVS. The #CVSQuits announcement was what inspired me to write the post, but the salient points could be made without any mention of it. The announcement merely highlighted the hypocrisy in a way I found convenient.

Consider this example. Your friend has just successfully quit smoking (example intentional) and tells you he’s reached his one year mark off of cigarettes. In response, you say, “That’s great! Good work. Now, about your weight…” In the same way, skeptics are saying things like, “Great job, CVS. Excellent decision. Now, about that homeopathy…”

This analogy is flawed in that it doesn’t correctly weight the effects in question. Smoking is far more deadly than being overweight. On the other hand, ceasing the sales of tobacco products will not stop smokers from smoking, but ending exploitative labor practices that lead to poverty would have a hugely positive effect on the health of CVS employees and their families.

However, all of this [the phenomenon of food deserts], as unfortunate as it is, has nothing to do with whether or not the decision to drop tobacco products was a rare responsible decision by a large corporation.

It has everything to do with it since CVS claimed that the move to drop tobacco products was to help people’s health. Again, smokers will not quit smoking because of CVS’s move. However, rectifying the problem of food deserts will directly end many problems with nutrition, something that has a lot to do with health.

when a company does something that is good for public health, [we skeptics shouldn’t] immediately attack the company for not doing something else that we think it should be doing. Accept the good action for what it is, acknowledge that it’s good, and resist the impulse to instantly yoke it to criticism of bad things the company is still doing.

It isn’t that great of a move: it will not stop anyone from smoking. As for the “yoking” in which I engaged? A great way to get people to pay attention to what you have to say is to tie it into a current event to which they are paying attention. Much as Orac used my piece to talk about his frustration with his perception of knee-jerk reactions, negativity, and demands for moral purity, I used #CVSQuits to talk about deeper inequalities that often are ignored in the greater discussions of corporate responsibility.

Smokers are not going to quit smoking just because CVS has stopped selling tobacco products; public opinion is squarely against smokers and smoking in the first place. CVS’s move, then, stands to benefit nearly no one and nothing but CVS’s public image and perhaps the consciences of some CVS pharmacy employees. Meanwhile, the company continues to engage in practices that directly lead to adverse health outcomes in its retail employees.

Just because no one is perfect doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as a flaw or that some flaws aren’t worse than others. Just because some of us demand more and better doesn’t mean that we demand perfection: it simply means that we have different priorities. Seeing as smoking rates continue to fall despite the fact that many stores sell cigarettes, CVS’s move, made in the name of “health,” is disingenuous. If CVS really cared about health, it would make the more expensive move that would help far more people’s health in a much more direct way. They are in the business of profit, like any corporation, and so they made the slick PR move instead. It clearly paid off.

CVS, Tobacco, & Well-Done PR Moves

From a Former Employee: 5 Reasons #CVSQuits is a Smokescreen

[Edited for clarity.]

This morning, the Internet was all a-twitter about #CVSQuits. CVS Caremark, the company that owns the CVS Pharmacy chain, has announced that CVS stores will be phasing out the sales of tobacco products. The move is an excellent publicity stunt, but, in my view, not terribly meaningful in terms of helping people’s health. Here’s why, based on what I know as a former CVS employee. (For the record, I left because I graduated college and got an office job, not because I was fired. Whenever I shop there, my former boss still tells me how much he wished I’d stayed.)

CVS isn’t really, or at least exclusively, a pharmacy.

Many of the people praising CVS on Twitter are asking why a “drug store” or “pharmacy” was in the business of selling tobacco products in the first place. The answer is simple: CVS stores are not pharmacies that happen to sell a few toiletries. Really, all CVSes are a full-on mass-merchandise retailers that happen to house pharmacies. In some areas, the local CVS serves as a general store. This is especially true when it’s a 24-hour store walking distance from working-poor neighborhoods.

CVSes in areas like mine actively participate in food-desert-like situations.

My store was the only walking-accessible store that sold groceries for several housing complexes filled with the working poor. Those with cars could shop at the closest grocery store, a Vons whose groceries were far more expensive than those from other local grocery chains. Those with cars who also had the time could go to an even further grocery store whose prices were better. I was lucky enough to have the time, work schedule, energy, and vehicle to make the trip to an Albertson’s several miles away. Many of my customers lacked that option. Their diets consisted of crappy food from our store which, to add insult to injury, could have been obtained much more cheaply from an actual grocery store.

CVS sells quack remedies.

Nearly everyone knows that smoking is bad for their health; smokers don’t smoke because they think it’s healthy. However, not everyone knows that CVS sells homeopathic “remedies” alongside actual medicines that contains active ingredients. The packaging and messaging is similar enough to ensure confusion. Meanwhile, cigarette packaging sports clear and prominent health warnings and tobacco products are hardly sold alongside, say, candy, or without age restriction.

CVS, like many retail stores, employs exploitative retail labor practices that create the working poor class.

Shuffling around hours regardless of people’s family life? Random scheduling at 24-hour stores that throws off sleep cycles? Punishing employees who call attention to scheduling mistakes by erasing their hours from the schedule rather than switching them with another willing employee? I’m not talking about Wal-Mart — CVS does those things all the time. I worked at a location where the regional manager was also the store manager and I knew people who worked at other stores in the region who had similar experiences, so schedule fuckery is hardly a one-off or rare occurrence. This might not be the case for other regions, but I happened to have worked for a fairly busy one.

Retail exploitation of labor leads to poor health outcomes, including nicotine addiction, due to stress and exhaustion. Sure, I read Nickel & Dimed when I was an adolescent, but nothing could prepare me for living like that myself: I was always tired. No amount of caffeine or supplements (both obtained at the oh-so-generous 20%-off employee discount) could alleviate the exhaustion that pervaded my life when I worked at CVS. I had the advantage of not having lived like that my whole life or having dependants. My coworkers were not so lucky. Many of them were parents and had other part-time jobs, which, along with the CVS gig, enabled them to scrape together a meager living. Their working-poor exhaustion reached levels I could not fathom. Judging or blaming them for using their 15-minute breaks to have a smoke would have been cruel.

Smoking rates continue to fall, but exploitative labor practices continue to rise.

The numbers don’t lie. CEO pay is rising while worker pay and benefits are falling. What used to be jobs by which teenagers could earn extra cash (retail, fast food, and so on) now constitute many adults’ main source of income. Remember my coworkers who worked multiple jobs? There are very few full-time positions available in retail; most retail positions these days are “part-time” (read: 35-hour-a-week) jobs designed to ensure that people aren’t eligible for benefits. As a result, people with dependents are forced to work two or three jobs in order to make ends meet. This means juggling transportation as well as multiple schedules and uniforms, ensuring more difficulties for people whose lives are already difficult.

Meanwhile, smoking rates have been dropping relatively steadily and rapidly. This isn’t to suggest causation or even correlation, just disingenuity on the part of CVS. People who are working poor tend to have worse health outcomes due to a lack of healthcare, nutritious diet, and sleep.

Despite that tweet, CVS continues to engage in practices that encourage such outcomes in their workers, who, I guess, don’t count as “people” to them.

Until CVS starts treating its workers in a way that enables optimal health outcomes, moves like #CVSQuits are mostly publicity stunts to me. The only effect this is going to have is to elevate CVS’s profile and perhaps alleviate feelings of hypocrisy among their direct pharmacy staff. I doubt it’s going to make anyone much healthier.

From a Former Employee: 5 Reasons #CVSQuits is a Smokescreen

I Wasn’t Angry Until You Said I Was: Civility & Its Discontents

I often find myself bringing up matters with people who might have missed their problematic nature. As time passes, I have come to ration my caution and care in such matters far more selectively. It’s draining to run scenarios in my head and try to figure out the exact approach that might circumvent any sort of unpleasant feeling in the person to whom I will be speaking, especially when my efforts hardly seem to matter.

My caution certainly didn’t matter the very morning of the day when that article claiming that outspoken women of color on Twitter are “toxic feminists” was published. Those privileged enough to not be misread as angry might put their faith in civility and good faith, but I don’t. As a relatively reasonable person, I cannot. The evidence simply doesn’t support my personally prioritizing others’ perception of my civility.

Hugh Hefner with a quote about secularism, flanked by a comment claiming that Hefner doesn't need heaven since he's made his heaven on earth.

That day last week, the image on the right was posted on a secular discussion group. I found it bizarre: Hugh Hefner was being presented as a secular example of someone who “lives [heaven] everyday! [sic].” Meanwhile, Hefner’s lifestyle is essentially a replication of Islamic heaven, the same afterlife used as proof by non-Muslims that Islam hates women.

I knew the person who posted it is a good-faith actor with the best of intentions who is willing to listen. As such, I strategized. I didn’t want to call him on it publicly because it might cause embarrassment. In addition, I steered clear of language that might trigger defensiveness (i.e. anything that ends with “-ist”).

Below is an abridged version of the conversation I had (bolding is mine).

Me: I wanted to talk about that meme when you have the chance
Him: What’s wrong with it?
Me:  your caption sort of rubbed me the wrong way. is HH really who we want as an example of an atheist who lives in “heaven” on earth? in his world, men can have as many women as they want, but his GFs are forbidden from having any other partners. not very heavenly, imho.
Him: Well, I don’t see a problem with HH because precisely my issue with religion is that it has oppressed sexuality. Whereas, HH has pushed against that. I don’t think he is sexist because not only is there playboy but playgirl as well.

Me:  I am aware of his contributions towards the liberation of male-centric sexuality. But I don’t know if promoting his lifestyle as “heaven” is at all inclusive given the way his lifestyle actually works: one where a man is surrounded by as many women as he wants while they are supposed to stay monogamous to him. that sounds like Old Testament/Quranic polygamy to me, not a secular heaven-on-earth
Him: Well, aren’t you in a poly relationship as well? I guess his having GFs and not allowing them to see others is unfair, I can see your point about that and I never knew that before.
Me: yes, I have multiple relationships. but they’re egalitarian.
Him: I guess he is sort of antiquated in some of his thinking, but overall he has done great for sexual liberation.

Me: I am just sharing my PoV in private message with you out of respect and in the hopes you could see some of my perspective.  his “heaven” is suspiciously close to that of Abrahamic oppressive sexist religion. So to present it on a secular group seems disingenuous to me as well as ignoring the fact that his heaven is just as sexist in some ways as those of religion.
Him:  I didn’t mean to make you angry about it.

Me: did I say I was angry or express anger at any time?
Him: No

He was hardly the first or only person to dub a carefully-worded, cautiously-approached conversation an expression of anger, despite my avoiding of words like “sexist.” Being read as angry when you are not does not require bad faith on the part of the person interpreting your words. All it requires is the skewed perspective bequeathed to us by the world: that anyone not upholding the status quo is disrupting it, and that such disruption is, by nature, angry.

Civility is, more often than not, in the eye of the beholder. When said eye is clouded over by subconscious biases, good faith isn’t enough to ensure that what is actually quite calm isn’t misread as “angry” and thus “uncivil.” It is with this perspective that I view those whose highest priority is “civility” with a great deal of suspicion. Attempting civility is often an exercise in futility for people in certain marginalized groups. I prioritize the elimination of the skewed perspective shared by so many, even self-described allies, that casts me as “uncivil” for daring to speak, over “civility.”

I Wasn’t Angry Until You Said I Was: Civility & Its Discontents