I am an immigrant resident of Arizona.
As soon as I open my mouth, everyone can tell that I am not born American as I have a thick foreign accent. I am, therefore, one of those immigrants at whom Arizona’s SB 1070 law is “targeted”.
When I received my greencard last year, I was sent a letter from the Department of Homeland Security – the same letter that is sent to thousands of new immigrants every week – from which I quote directly:
We will soon mail you a new Permanent Resident Card… When you receive your card, you must carry it with you at all times if you are 18 older. It is the law.
(Emphasis added.)
Pretty clear.
Indeed, in five years of negotiating my way through the inhumane and largely self-defeating US immigration system, I can say with complete certainty that the particular requirement to carry my Permanent Resident Card is the least onerous of any that I have had to comply with as a legal alien.
More to the point, as someone who came to the USA for its tradition of individual liberty, especially that aspect thereof enshrined in the fourth amendment, I have a problem of principle with any kind of ID card, and I would stand firmly against any such thing for the citizenry of this nation or the nation of my birth.
However, while a permanent resident, I am here as a guest, and my carrying my “greencard” (it isn’t green) is a reasonable step on the path to becoming a proud American – “reasonable” because any nation needs to know whom it lets in, as part of its responsibility to the security of its citizens.
Leaving aside for now the question of the constitutionality of Arizona’s new law SB 1070 in that it operates in a domain that is the exclusive purview of the Federal government, (I’ll get to that later,) the new law in Arizona not only restates the main federal legal requirement of immigrants – to carry immigrant I.D. – but is also entirely consistent with the rights that I always knew I have and do not have as an immigrant.
Why, then – unless I wanted to privilege one subset of Americans or non-American immigrants over others – would I get upset about the passage of SB 1070?
I wouldn’t, obviously.
Not only am I not upset. I would proudly walk around with a tee-shirt that has my “greencard” emblazoned on it at 100x magnification (although, just to be clear, I would of course resist a law that required it).
I chose to come to this great land and abide by its laws, because I believe in its founding values and documents; because I want the opportunity to pursue my own American dream, however I define that for myself, and because I want to enjoy the freedoms that are protected here by the rule of Law – which is the only protection against the rule of men.
The emotional and financial cost of legal immigration to the USA is ridiculously high, and for sure the immigration system it must be reformed, but I knowingly paid it to gain the privilege of benefiting from the legacy of America’s founders and the many great men and women who have made the USA what it has become – and to add my own tiny story to the incredible American narrative.
Whenever I fly and I am asked for my I.D., I don’t show the TSA officer a driving license. I pull out my “greencard”, and hand it over with a sense of accomplishment, appreciation and even a little pride. And if, with good cause and, therefore, in a manner consistent with my Constitutional rights, an Arizonan law officer asks me for my I.D., I will also show him or her my “greencard”, and no doubt have all the same feelings. Indeed, I cannot imagine not wanting to contribute in such a small way to the security of the nation of which I have sought, and have been allowed, to become a part.
My individual rights and the rights of my new countrymen, depend on the rule and enforcement of Law, applied equally to all, regardless of background or color. For that reason, the backlash against SB 1070 is not in any true sense “liberal” or “progressive”. A true liberal would support the rule of Law that protects the security and the rights of its individual citizens. Similarly, support for SB 1070 is not really “conservative”. It is just American – not in a jingoistic sense, but in the sense of wanting to protect other Americans with whom we identify.
So as an immigrant, I’d like to tell the truth about SB 1070. Not only is the law blind to color and ethnicity, incorporating, as it does, the relevant parts of Federal statutes: it even protects me from being asked for my documents (which the federal statute, as far as I was informed upon becoming a “greencard” holder, may not) unless the law officer has reason to believe I am in violation of the law of which I was notified when I became an immigrant. It couldn’t be any fairer – and in fact offers me an protection that was not offered to me in the “Welcome to America” letter I quoted at the top of this article.
While I would not be so stupid to say that there is no racism in Arizona, since I have lived in this state, I have not overheard anyone put down a member of any immigrant community by virtue of their ethnicity, (unlike in Manhattan, where I used to live and had various experiences of racism, some very scary), but I have heard plenty of concern from ordinary citizens about the dangers of making the Rule of Law unimportant, and normalizing the violation of law as the first experience of newcomers to this country. Anyone who cares about their human rights should share that concern.
The claim that the SB 1070 is motivated by racism simply does not reflect the Arizonans I know.
Let’s be clear – and in writing the following, I know I will horrify many of those with whom I often politically agree – if there is any racism around SB 1070, it is on the other side of this debate. It lies in the idea that we should not seek to enforce established law equally because we want to give a particular ethnic group – singled out only because we assume rightly or wrongly, that group tends more than any other to violate that particular law (!) – a pass on their legal obligations.
Shouting “racism” where there is no racial motivation is itself racist, as it seeks to promote division to the benefit of the group that makes the claim. Again, to clarify, that is not to say that the group in question does not experience racism or their fear of it is without good cause. Rather, it is to say that evils are best eliminated when their true location is identified. For that very reason, I hope that any law officer that implements SB 1070 or any other law with a bias for or against one race or community suffers the full force of the laws that already protect us all against that evil. But that does not speak against Arizona’s law.
Consider the logic of the anti-SB 1070 position. It is, “the law is unfair because it supports discrimination against a particular group that is much more likely to be breaking that law – even though the same law states that not even basic checks of identity (let alone arrest etc.) can be made until there is reasonable suspicion that the relevant law is being broken”. I’m reminded of Bill Cosby: “Come on People”.
Now let’s turn to the broader issue of immigration – an aspect of US policy and law that I know better than any other, because of my personal experiences with it.
I believe that all people have the right to pursue happiness; that any person who crosses the border for the economic good of their family is doing a moral good, and that America’s immigration system needs radical reform for at least two reasons. 1) To allow more of these good, hard-working people, of whatever origin, to come here, to the benefit of them and our nation, and 2) to end the near-impossibility of immigration by anyone who wants to come here legally but has no family tie or claim to asylum, and the huge emotional, psychological, financial and temporal burdens that accompany any such effort.
Those who really want to help immigrants should concentrate on understanding the current “legal” immigration system that incentivizes illegal immigration. Legal and illegal immigration are two sides of the same coin and cannot be solved independently of the other.
It is my fantasy to sit one day as a witness in a Congressional Committee on immigration, and to tell the story of the 700 pages of documents I had to compile each time I needed to renew my visa; of the $200 I had to pay for a photocopy of one sheet of paper from the Department of Homeland Security; of the absurdity of the fact that even after I paid, the DHS didn’t send me that document (which I needed to travel) for 200 days, until someone who knew someone made a phone call to a “special number” and got the document to me three days later etc. etc. Even Kafka would be impressed.
I would tell the Committee that the immigration problem is not as difficult to solve as it suits them to believe. Of course, secure the border for no other reason than that security is the primary duty of the government. Then make just two changes to the law, and one clarification.
First, pass a law that says that anyone who has committed a visa/immigration violation may never thereafter become a permanent resident (and therefore citizen) of the country. That does not mean they may not stay here if they have family: allow violators with American spouses and children to remain on a rolling basis under renewable sponsorship by their American spouse.
This will change the incentive calculus for illegal immigrants, and will deal with one of the most important immigration statistics that you have never heard: from 2000 to 2007, two thirds of all legal Mexican immigrants (who represented 35% of all immigrants to the USA) were once here illegally! Those immigrants are making completely rational choices given the system we have, and for commendable reasons. The fault is not with them. It is with us as Americans. This two-thirds compares with the mere 9% of all immigrants who become immigrants legally through work (whether as foreign entrepreneurs or under corporate sponsorship). (Yes, 9%.)
Second, change the law to limit family-based immigration to immediate family only. When you are a citizen, you can sponsor your spouse and children to follow you, and perhaps, if you can prove you have the means to support them, your elderly parents when they need care. No more uncles, aunties, cousins, cousins’ dogs’ trainers’ grandmothers.
Third, send a test case to the supreme court regarding the 14th amendment, which states,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This amendment was passed in 1868 to ensure that all persons, including slaves and their progeny, could be citizens of the nation. Apparently, it sought to provide a broad definition of citizenship, and to overrule Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. (I am open to correction from scholars on this point.)
This amendment has never been tested in the Supreme Court and is begging to be clarified: it clearly states that to become citizens, children born in the U.S. must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. This would not include the children of diplomats, foreign visitors or similar aliens. Nor, clearly, was it intended to extend to children of illegal immigrants who perhaps more than any, are not subject to the jurisdiction of this country. Such a clarification in the Supreme Court will support my first suggestion above in tackling the problem of so-called “Anchor babies”.
It goes without saying, I hope, that we have a moral and civic responsibility to those whom were brought here “illegally’ as minors to let them settle as American citizens.
Talking about the Constitution, let’s finally get to that pesky question of the constitutionality of Arizona’s law: if it is unconstitutional, it must be struck down for that reason alone. But it is the height of hypocrisy by the Federal government, which fails every day in hundreds of ways to act within the confines of the Constitution, to bring suit. So once the suit against Arizona is done, I hope that every state in the Union should take at face value the Federal government’s newly found interest in the Constitution, and sue it to force it to meet its own obligations.
Thank You America for giving me this opportunity.
Robin Koerner is a British-born citizen of the USA, who currently serves as Academic Dean of the John Locke Institute. He holds graduate degrees in both Physics and the Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge (U.K.). He is also the founder of WatchingAmerica.com, an organization of over 100 volunteers that translates and posts in English views about the USA from all over the world.
Robin may be best known for having coined the term “Blue Republican” to refer to liberals and independents who joined the GOP to support Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency in 2012 (and, in so doing, launching the largest coalition that existed for that candidate).
Robin’s current work as a trainer and a consultant, and his book If You Can Keep It , focus on overcoming distrust and bridging ideological division to improve politics and lives. His current project, Humilitarian, promotes humility and civility as a basis for improved political discourse and outcomes.