Having researched and written several articles, and having read hundreds of comments on the subject of illegal immigration over the past ten days, one thing becomes clear. The vast majority of those speaking on the subject are inclined to take black and white, yea or nay positions. Some simply want to rid America of “illegals”, others simply want to protect them. Like everything else in America these days, or so it seems, the lines are predominantly partisan and ideologically hardened. Within that struggle, the obsession with proving one side right and one side wrong, the complexities of the issue are lost in the muck and blood of the partisan wars. To those with the patience to do so, I propose taking a broader, and hopefully more realistic, look into the substance with a goal of empowering leaders to seek real solutions.
Let’s begin with a few propositions.
1. Illegal immigration is not confined to Mexicans or the broader classification of Latinos. Illegal immigration includes inflows from the far east, primarily China and Southeast Asia. It also includes inflows from Eastern Europe, primarily Russia with lesser inflows from other countries of the former Soviet bloc. It includes inflows from the Middle East and from Africa. The Latino population is the largest and most noticeable, but it is not the sole source.
2. There are multiple points of entry. These include land borders with Mexico, the favorite of Latino immigrants and Canada, the favorite of Middle Eastern and Eastern European immigrants. Points of entry also include water borders, boats from the Carribean, ships dropping off to smaller boats in both the Atlantic and Pacific, and oceanic cargo containers, a favorite of Far East illegal immigrants.
3. The vast majority of illegal residents are productive, perhaps even necessary, components of many of our economic and social institutions. They tend to assume menial jobs at low wages. Their employers will confirm that they work hard and cause little trouble. They are frugal with their wages which are both spent here to support other businesses and sent “home” to support extended families, in the process having an ameliorating impact on foreign relations.
4. American businesses and consumers reap substantial benefits from productive illegal residents. Those benefits include the provision of labor in otherwise difficult to fill jobs, reduced overhead and turnover, and reduced consumer prices at grocery stores, resorts, hotels, restaurants and in construction costs and manufactured goods. Most of those benefits come in the areas of day labor for short term or seasonal work and general menial labor, not in the skilled crafts’ jobs sought by most American citizens.
5. A minority of illegal residents are destructive to the fabric of American society. They are present to participate in criminal cartel, organized crime and gang activity. They saturate the underbelly of American life with drugs, violence, kidnapping, slave labor, white slavery and prostitution rings, all to society’s detriment. Those criminal elements are often controlled by foreign interests from Russia to China to Mexico and Colombia to Nigeria and the Middle East.
Sledgehammers
The right handed sledgehammer comes in the form of laws like those recently passed in Arizona and now under consideration in other states. Those laws target a particular ethnic group, usually Latinos, and simply seek to run them out. In the process those laws, either intentionally or inadvertently, create a discriminatory impact on all within the target group, including Latino-American U. S. Citizens.
Jeb Bush, former Republican Florida Governor, disapprovingly noted that laws like those in Arizona will have unintended consequences. Though he did not elaborate, such unintended consequences are likely to include this: the law is apt to deport a far greater percentage of “productive” illegal immigrants than “destructive” illegal immigrants. Using traffic stops as papers check points, for example, is far more likely to result in nabbing “productive” illegal workers in pickup trucks than “destructive” criminal gang members and drug dealers. Productive illegal workers are far more open and exposed in their daily lives and have far fewer resources to secret and protect themselves than the criminal elements. The “productive” illegal residents are, thus, the more vulnerable targets, while the “destructive” criminal underground is comparatively less affected.
The left handed sledgehammer is equally indiscriminatory in its commitment to providing sanctuary for all illegal residents. In their zeal to protect and shelter the “innocent”, they provide cover for the dangerous and destructive. And, unwittingly, an environment is created where the “innocent” illegal residents become the victims of the dangerous and destructive element who employ intimidation and fear to impose their will. Kidnapping for ransom and wage kickback and protection schemes are visible examples of intra-cultural exploitation among illegal populations where “destructive” illegal residents profit from unwarranted protection.
Nuances
Dealing with nuances almost always involves recognizing facts and fashioning productive solutions that do not fit neatly into any partisan bag. To understand the nuances of illegal immigration, those on the right need to come to grips with the socio-economic benefits provided by “productive” illegal residents and the cultural positives of avoiding action that creates a discriminatory impact on Latino-American U. S. Citizens. Those on the left, to benefit from the wisdom of nuance, need to understand that giving cover to “destructive” criminal elements of the illegal resident community works long term socio-economic ill.
Effective problem solving, then, requires both sides of the partisan divide to educate the other about the real problems while accepting from the other side the education it provides. From that open interchange can emerge a prioritized consensus and course of action. In the examples above, such a discussion could occur in the context of the mutually acceptable parameters of: a) wanting to avoid discriminatory impact while b) avoiding unnecessary socio-economic dislocation and while c) removing from the country sources of destructive criminal disruption and violence.
From such an open consensus might come a problem-directed solution that does not mount a right handed sledgehammer attack on an entire ethnic group, nor offer left handed sledgehammer protection, but rather prioritizes a legal assault on destructive criminal elements of all ethnicities (Latino, Russian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, etc.) while providing short term accommodation for the preservation of productive labor forces.
Within that context, border security and management, both land and sea, would, and could, be addressed. Longer term solutions with regard to preserving a productive immigrant labor force, for both their benefit and ours, could also be discussed. If partisan positioning could be set aside, that debate could even emerge from the intractable “deportation vs. citizenship” divide to include other options like long term or permanent legal immigrant status or short to medium term guest worker programs.
The key that unlocks the door is giving up the partisan mud wrestling and addressing the issue based on a realistic assessment of the problems that need to be addressed and the benefits that need to be retained.
[Author’s Note: I recommend, for further reading directed specifically at the Arizona situation, this.]
Cross posted at Elijah’s Sweete Spot, where COMMENTS/DISCUSSION are Disqus® enabled.
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.