In search of a solution to illegal immigration
(Note: This post has also been published at the One America Committee Blog. An earlier version was published at The Reaction.)
From the L.A. Times: “A crowd estimated by police at more than 500,000 boisterously marched in Los Angeles on Saturday to protest federal legislation that would crack down on undocumented immigrants, penalize those who help them and build a security wall along the U.S.’s southern border.”
It should go without saying, but it is often forgotten: America is a nation of immigrants. It is true that many are in America illegally, but, as John F. Kennedy put it in a book with that very title, A Nation of Immigrants: “Immigration policy should be generous; it should be fair; it should be flexible.” Most immigrants are in America because they want to be. Some have risked their lives to come to what they see as, in Lincoln’s words, “the last, best hope of earth”. They came to America because, to them, America represents hope and opportunity, because it offers hope and opportunity to those who simply have neither elsewhere. Illegal or not, they now live in America and contribute to America. Indeed, they love America and want to stay. The march in L.A. this past weekend only reinforced this point.
To be sure, something needs to be done about “illegal” (or “undocumented”) immigration, but I must say this: Let America’s policy towards these immigrants be generous, fair, and flexible. Do not punish them for having chosen to come to America. Offer them an opportunity to settle, legally, for good. If they work, if they pay their taxes, if they accept the American way of life and want to be a part of it, indeed, if they are already American, broadly speaking, be generous to them. They only want to live their lives in Lincoln’s last, best hope, in a nation of immigrants that has historically welcomed the tired, the poor, the huddled masses who have yearned for the chance to start anew, to make a better life for themselves and their families.
These new Americans want to breathe free. Let them.
**********
Such was my first reaction upon reading of the march on Saturday. We are all the children of immigrants, even our native peoples. We all come from somewhere else. I stand with those 500,000 in L.A. I celebrate them. They are all of us.
And yet the problem remains: What are we to do about illegal immigration? Everyone has an answer, or the beginning of an answer, yet no answer seems satisfactory. And my own initial answer — let them breathe free — just isn’t realistic. It would be wonderful if everyone could breathe freely, perhaps even in a world devoid of boundaries, but we need to deal with things as they are.
And, as they are, illegal immigration is a problem, whether we like it or not. And I say this not because I want to build a wall around America (or Canada, where we deal with different but related immigration issues) but because, as a liberal, I value the rule of law as the basis of our very way of life. Without it, or when it simply isn’t enforced with consistency, what are we left with?
I want an open immigration policy, but illegal immigrants circumvent open immigration by jumping ahead of those who are legally attempting to secure residency or citizenship. How is that fair? I want an expansive conception of residency and citizenship, a liberal conception, but illegal immigrants live and work in a sort of no-man’s-land deep in the shadows of society, among us but never quite with us. How is that just?
In addition, there are both security and economic concerns. With respect to the former, it is imperative that America have some semblance of control over its own borders. With respect to the latter, as Paul Krugman put it on Monday in The New York Times (available in full here), “many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico”. This is because Mexican immigrants “increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans”. Unfortunately, illegal immigration hurts America’s working (and non-working) poor. Corporations would be more than happy to have a guest-worker program, as Krugman rightly argues. I suspect that the working poor, those who are barely clinging to self-sufficiency and who are struggling daily just to pay their bills, wouldn’t.
But, then, what to do about it? President Bush supports a three-pronged effort to secure the borders, enforce existing laws, and promote a guest-worker program that does not provide amnesty. The House supports draconian measures that would criminalize illegal immigrants and make supporting them a felony. From The Boston Globe (via Edward Copeland), here’s some of what else is being considered:
Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is crafting a bill that would establish a guest worker program and provide a path toward citizenship for undocumented aliens. Senator Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is writing his own bill to make criminals of illegal immigrants. A third measure, by Senators Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., would step up enforcement of existing laws and expand opportunities for foreigners to work in the United States, but would require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes and a fine before becoming authorized.
Do any of these options appeal to you? Frist is just rehashing the House bill, as expected, but Specter seems to be onto something.
Immigration could turn out to be one of the bigger and most divisive campaign issues both this year and in ’08. President Bush faces challenges from anti-immigration radicals within his own party, the xenophobic nationalist wing of the GOP. If there’s one issue where I find myself in at least partial agreement with him, this is it, although it’s not as if he has the political capital to withstand Congressional efforts to build Fortress America. For that, we’ll need the full force of the Democratic Party and those Republican dissidents who refuse to play this nasty game. Thankfully, there are intelligent, compassionate voices on both sides of the aisle, responsible officials who are working to find a solution. (For more, see here. I applaud Hillary Clinton’s efforts here.)
Like Krugman, I am “emotionally pro-immigration”. But: “We need to do something about immigration, and soon.” We must oppose all those draconian measures that have emerged from the far right, but we must also find some way to balance an open immigration policy that welcomes a steady influx of new Americans with a more realistic assessment of just what can be done to reduce illegal immigration without penalizing those who already make America their home.
That, to me, seems to be the truly American thing to do.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “In search of a solution to illegal immigration”
It is doubtful that Republicans want a solution. They do want an issue, any issue, for the fall campaign…as long as that issue is not their performance in office.
They have had complete power for many years and, until now, have had little interest in immigration. They know from the Contract with America that solving problems removes them as campaign issues and for them that is bad.
Immigration could turn out to be one of the bigger campaign issues, but it is early, even for this year. If it does not have staying power, Republicans will move on to something else, such as pornography. Whatever the issue, Republicans want it to be divisive. That’s what keeps them in power.
Since Arlen Specter’s “guests” would have U.S. citizen children, be given home loans, be given SBA loans and start businesses, and on and on, those he refers to as “guests” will never be sent home.
So, Arlen Specter calls them “guests”, but they won’t go home.
Arlen Specter is lying to you.
As for the marchers, I’m sure that most or at least many of them do not outright support Aztlan. However, a large number of them do, and that issue is not being dealt with. In fact, the Democratic Party is proud of its members who are former members of racial separatist organizations, such as L.A. mayor AV, Gil Cedillo, Fabian Nunez (I think he was a MEChA member), and even U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva.
There are a large number of “ifs” in the first part of your essay, and I’d strongly suggest taking a close look at how many of the marchers would make it through that filter.
the guest worker program is a sham…..amnesty is a sham….the employers who call talk radio and alledge that they cant hire legal workers are a sham…the march was a sham
we have allowed the corporatists to control the agenda
after the reagan amnesty program, we closed our eyes to the issue
and illegals from all corners of the globe continued to stream across our borders
unless this sham congress enacts true immigration reform, in 10 years it wont be 12 million, it will be 30 million…the middle class will be gone and we will look like a third world country.
this is not fear…this is reality.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to ask a few questions that I’ve repeatedly asked and never yet received an answer.
If these “guest worker” programs are not amnesty programs, what are they? Illegals are allowed to stay without penalty (OK, a few back taxes and maybe some fines…big deal compared to the hardships people are facing while waiting years/decades/generations to try to get here legally and whose processes are being slowed due to the illegals) and can even be granted citizenship.
These “new Americans” came here to breathe free. There are thousands of potential new Americans who are trying to come here to breathe free and are following our laws in the process. Why shouldn’t they get to come here before those who break our laws in order to get here?
Why is it considered draconian to enforce our laws? I agree that making being here illegally a felony goes a bit far but it’s also important to note that a proposal to change that was blocked by Democrats who wanted to leave that in the House bill to make it easier to defeat.
Why is everyone who is against amnesty for illegal immigrants labeled “radical” and “xenophobic”? Believe it or not, a lot of people who are against these “guest worker” and other amnesty-like programs feel this way because we don’t want people who break our laws to be treated better than those who follow our laws. We’re not radical or xenophobic, we just wish for some level of fairness in the process.
I could ask many more questions but I’ll leave off with this one. Why are anti-illegal immigration people being treated as anti-immigration? There is a big difference between the two. I would love to see more liberal immigration laws. However, I have yet to see one good reason why we should give those who broke and continue to break our laws preference over those who are acting within our laws. Illegal immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to reap the benefits of staying here while waiting for the legal procedures to happen when those who have been doing things within the law from the very beginning have to continue living through hardship while waiting for their legal procedures to happen.
Ryan:
I think you’re questions are good ones assuming they are sincere, not rhetorical. If you don’t mind I’ll just address the last one –
Two part answer:
1. Ask yourself this question: Are you in favor of increasing legal immigration, or in favor of decreasing it? I am willing to bet that the majority of those who are rabidly anti-illegal-immigration (perhaps not yourself) are in favor of decreasing legal immigration. Don’t you agree? What is your position on this? Is it not appropriate to label someone who favors decreasing immigration levels as “anti-immigrant”? Or is there a more accurate short-hand term? (Not a rhetorical question)
2. In discussing the illegal immigrant legislation, arguments are often made by those who are rabidly anti-illegal-immigrant that would apply equally well to all immigrants – or, at times, equally well to all poor people. Examples abound: Complaints about too much spanish being spoken, proposals for taxing money cabled to Mexico, many (but not all) discussions of tax/welfare issues, suggestions (such as the one in a comment above) that the U.S. is destined to become a “third-world country”, etc, etc. These kinds of arguments are not confined to the sphere of illegal immigration – therefore, those who make them can sometimes be justifiably regarded as anti-immigrant.
I just thought I’d add something to my #2 above.
Yesterday, here in Georgia, a piece of anti-illegal-alien legislation was passed by the Legislature. In the paper today I noticed that one of the provisions of the legislation was that “notarios” – which are typically spanish-speaking non-lawyers who advise latinos on immigration issues – will now be regulated (and presumably, restricted) by the state of Georgia.
Now, quite obviously notarios are used by both illegal latino immigrants and legal ones. So, how is that an illegal alien issue? It quite obviously is not. Rather, it is a general immigration issue. Therefore, there is some justification (though, granted, not a great deal of justification) for labeling the legislation as “anti-immigrant”, in addition to being “anti-illegal-immigrant. Does this make sense?
Ok, way too much said on that subject. (whew)
Most definitely in favor of increasing it and simplifying the process. It’s ridiculous how long some people who legitimately have to or need to get here have to wait and how difficult it is for them to get here.
I’m not saying that some anti-illegal immigration people aren’t anti-immigration in general. Of course, some are. However, I’ve already been called an anti-immigrant and xenophobic several times and implied that many times more. The article itself refers to people who are against illegal immigration as anti-immigration people, calls us xenophobic, and says we’re in the fringe. Three strikes in one article. Anyone who knows anything about me would know how ridiculous those accusations are. This mindless name calling reminds me of people saying that everyone who disagrees with Bush about Iraq is against our soldiers, everyone who disagrees with Bush on the tax cuts is in favor of high taxes, etc. ad nauseum.
“Have to or need to”? I really need to proofread better. That should be “have to or want to”.
As for the Georgia legislation, I don’t know much about it but maybe it could be called anti-illegal immigration with an anti-immigration part. Or maybe it’s anti-immigration legislation in general, in which case I would be opposed to it.
I don’t know if you saw this in another place but, if you’re wondering why I’m so outspoken about illegal immigration (probably more than any other topic) is because my wife’s family fell victim to illegal immigrants. By everything they have been told, they had to spend over 5 years longer than necessary trying to get into this country because of illegal immigrants. Had they come here illegally with some people they know, they could have been here within months of when they began trying. Because they wanted to do it legally, they had to wait over 15 years. According to what officials, including my Congressman told us, they could have been here 5-7 years earlier if so many illegal immigrants weren’t coming, forcing Congress to hold the cap on legal immigration lower than they otherwise would.
I’m with Ryan on simplifying the process. I mean, I looked it up online and the best site I found was the US Citizenship and Immigration Services site. They have 96 different forms posted on-line that have to do with coming to America. And the whole site is in English. Now, I don’t have any way of looking at this from, say, a Mexican point of view. I don’t know how easy it is for them to get on-line or if they know how to find information on immigrating to the US legally. But it took me hours to figure out that you have to be a temporary resident, then a permanent resident for at least 5 years before you can apply for citizenship. And every step of the way costs hundreds of dollars which is way more than most Mexicans can afford. You also have to fill out a separate form (with its own fee) to be able to work in the US. It’s a very complex process.
Count me in with both Ryan and Amanda on simplifying the processing (and on increasing the visa quotas in general). Ryan, I hope I haven’t offended you personally. I certainly didn’t mean to, and I sympathize with your personal situation.
Just as it is true that there are some on one side that are truly anti-immigrant, it is also true that there are those on the other side who are much too quick to play the racism card. They are both wrong.
I agree w/ making the process easier and more streamlined. BUT and this is a big one, how many unskilled laborers do we want/need. If we’re talking about engineering students from Japan, great bring them in. They will work hard, be lawful, pay taxes, and substantially increase our engineering ranks.
Brining in more unskilled labor that can paint a house or mow a lawn makes no sense. And that is primarily what the illegal immigrants from south of the border are. Unskilled, cheap labor.
Living in Texas, a state w/ a huge illegal immigrant and border control problem, I speak from a different perspective. Our schools are getting cramped, we MUST teach them in Spanish for some insane reason, and we MUST provide expensive medical care to them including ICU time.
I have yet to see the bottom line of what illegal immigration does for us. Yep, it gives us unskilled labor and a large workforce. Does it provide much in the way of taxes aside from sales tax? How about paying for schools, nope that is through our homeowners taxes. The debate can go on for ever, but I agree w/ Ryan above, I’m anti ILLEGAL immigration. It is unfair, wrong, and Illegal.
Laurence, no offense taken. I’ve learned long ago that one who gets offended by comments made online will not be able to remain online very long.
That said, it does wear on one to constantly hear that he’s something that anyone who knew anything about his life would know in an instant was false. Would an anti-immigration individual marry someone who came here as an immigrant? Anyway, the point is that people say illegal immigrants aren’t hurting anyone. The truth is they are hurting legal immigrants. I know people debate about the points Jim raises, points that I think are very legitimate and deserve to also be discussed. However, based on what my Congressman told me, it’s not debatable that illegal immigrants are keeping legal immigrants out of this country by forcing Congress to keep the immigration cap lower.
I responded to one of the other Moderate Voice posts on immigration – specifically, why “amnesty” is a red herring and forgiving past wrongs is a normal, equitable trait of the law everywhere else, where it’s called a “statute of limitations.” See here and a similar post on my blog.
The McCain/Kennedy provision even does require punishment in the form of a fine – in no other area of the law is fining someone thought to be “amnesty” or “rewarding bad behavior.” Why a penalty fine in the immigration realm, then, is considered “amnesty” is difficult to understand.
FYI, having worked in legal representation of immigrants applying for various kinds of visas, immigrants in deportation proceedings, and immigrants applying for political asylum, I’m pretty familiar with the legal monstrosity that we call our immigration laws. I created my blog to help be a source of info and to dispel misinformation about immigration law. While my own personal opinion on the issue is virtually inevitable, if you visit the site you’ll see I also have objective legal facts there about immigration law. If you have a question about a particular part of immigration law, feel free to leave a comment somewhere, and I’ll respond in a post.
Why is it so difficult to understand? Someone pays back taxes, something anyone who doesn’t pay taxes should get hit with, and pays a relatively modest fine. They get to stay in the country and live their relatively comfortable lives while those who follow the laws are still living difficult lives while trying to get here legally. Those who break the law are still making out better than those who follow the law. What do you call that? Whatever you call it, I can’t bring myself to call it fair.
In my (nearly ideal) world the US would:
1) Secure its borders, both for its own security as well as the safety of those trying to cost
2) Vastly expand and simplify(as several have noted) our legal immigration policies. Why should labor be excluded from global supply and demand requirements?
3) Make undocumented immigration a misdemeanor punishable by a fine (say, about the same as that for a first time DUI, surley drunk drivers are the more dangerous law breakers?), coupled with a way to integrate immigrants into the on the books economy, with the ultimate goal of citizenship.
4) Begin seriously to enforce employment laws.
Just some thoughts
I got a great idea….enforce the exsisting laws for a change.
Since 1999 fines against employers of illegal aliens has dropped every year to almost none now. The buisnesses that employ illegals are the true culprits, but will not be punished by the poltiicos for repeated crimes, since they provide campaign cash. No jobs for illegals, and they will have to go home, then the work visas can be started once again, with a streamlined legal immigration system allowing for quicker, and simpler immigration hopefully passed to make things fair.
I responded to Ryan in the other related immigration blog, “Bordering on the Absurd” (link is above the comments).
Immigrant rights advocates generally agree with the notion of enforcing employer sanctions (as do I). No one really disagrees with it (except of course the politicians who get business money). Where pro and anti disagree is on how to treat the immigrants themselves. I also absolutely think we should secure our borders. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that the undocumented who’ve been here for years or decades will up and leave. Their US citizen kids are working or in school; they have longstanding ties to local communities, etc.
A few responses: First, there are many worthwhile, thoughtful comments posted which I appreciate. I would like to address the “fairness” issue. I agree that putting “illegals” in front of, so to speak, legal immigrants is unfair and some proposals in legislation have incorporated more unfairness. I am a middle school educator and an ongoing mantra of mine is: “life can be unfair.” Let me hasten to add, I am not saying we should knowingly push forward with unfairness in this volatile issue. I want to see the FAIREST solution possible. What I think has been so unfair is that government has not dealt with this since Reagan times. It is worrying about “shutting the barn door and the cows are already out.” Though I label myself a Jimmy Carter Independent/Democrat, I agree, IN PART, with Bush (first time) on a (a)gwp that would be equitable and (b)”go to back of line.” (even though I’ve heard some say, that is euphemism for: back of line is Mexico.) To the comment “we MUST teach them in Spanish”: I am not sure where/if that is going on…..the public school in Texas where I teach has ESL classes(English as Second Language) This doesn’t mean secondary; it means stu.learned other lang. first; now learning ENGLISH secondly to succeed in school and life. I teach in them. To me, the reason issue so emotional is one side having “sliver of pie” taken away versus others’ “tablecloth being pulled off the table!” Then throw in Hispanic STRONG family bonds…..it requires a solution; either fair or less than fair, and hopefully the former.
As to the difference between anti-legal-immigration and anti-immigrant. I’m in favor of low levels of immigration. Once I’m sure that my culture won’t change, and that the environment won’t suffer, then I welcome immigrants. I enjoy talking and learning their culture, where to visit in their country, their cuisine. And I enjoy filling them in on our customs, most of which they will want to adopt in order to fit in.
u suck u suck balls biggtime balls so big bigger than a elephants u guys dont put enough info on this suka
PING:
TITLE: Illegal Immigrant, or the Next Celebrity Chef?
BLOG NAME: Freshly Squeezed
Perhaps no issue has revealed our inner divisions more than the question of immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular. A Senate committee has passed an immigration measure that would create a guest worker program and a path for…