Recent legislative action in Arizona prompted renewed conversations about immigration policy, national security and immigration reform.
It's about time.
News reports out of Arizona over the past couple of days link the new law, giving police the authority to arrest residents without proper documentation, to Mexico's "drug wars" that threaten to spill over into the United States. Making that connection doesn't stand up under even a cursory investigation.
The vast, vast majority of immigrants in the United States and in Arizona have no connection whatsoever to the illegal drug trade. Such unfair, unproven rhetoric does not advance an honest discussion, but promotes bigotry, hatred and division in our communities.
The hundreds of immigrants I've known and talked to over the past 16 years came to the U. S. seeking a better life, work and hope for themselves and their families. This is the story for almost all of the 12-14 million immigrants in this country without the proper papers. And, this has been the story of all of us immigrants who came to the U. S. or whose ancestors arrived before us.
And, we've all taken good advantage of their presence. Businesses, homeowners, contractors, restaurants. . .the list is practically endless. The economy in Dallas would be hurt severely by the exit of the folks who are here without documentation.
So, I'll walk with thousands of others today.
I'll walk because I believe in the people who need to be included in our national life.
I'll walk because I believe in the promise of our nation.
16 comments:
My only disagreement with your statement is your inference that a conversation has begun and that "it's about time" for it. This statement suggests that a conversation has not occured. However, my conservative friends and I have been discussing illegal immigration and the need for a sound policy for many years. The AZ law has forced the federal government into a discussion is does not want to engage in. Politicians are wary of taking a stand and making commitments to a policy b/c any number of the various voting blocks can keep them from being reelected. The result is irresponsible enforcement of existing laws and a rediculous concoction of new laws to fill in where present policy has failed. Parties on various sides of this multifaceted issue are using politician fear to gain very specific outcomes. I am not sure who is worse, the politicians or the interest groups.
Here's an interesting take on illegal immigrants (or undocumented citizens as Obama likes to call them):
http://policulture.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/the-democrats-and-illegal-immigrants/
Wonder how many of these protesters are illegally here? Its kinda like supporting a tax increase when you don't have to pay taxes yourself.
I don't think Obama would ever call them undocumented 'citizens' -he knows all too well they are not citizens. Undocumented 'workers' or 'immigrants,' maybe, which is accurate, but not 'citizens.'
Anon 7:08 - let me see if I have this straight - I'm not here legally, though I really want to be legal, so it's somehow wrong for me to speak up and ask for someone to help me become legal? ... really?!
In reply to this: "Anon 7:08 - let me see if I have this straight - I'm not here legally, though I really want to be legal, so it's somehow wrong for me to speak up and ask for someone to help me become legal? ... really?!"
Several issues with this statement:
It is not wrong to want to be here legally, if you are here illegally. But "you" are here illegally and that's what's wrong. "You" can request to be here legally from the other side of the border.
Also, you make a significant leap when you suggest that those who are here illegally really do want to be here legally. If illegal aliens wanted to be here legally, they would not be here at all. Clearly, legal status has no impact on the behavioral outcome of illegal immigration. It is more true to recognize, in general, that those who have migrated illegally to the US desire to become US citizens in order to remain here and be free from threat of deportation.
It is interesting to me that I and many (the majority) Americans support immigration reform and desire to support steady and fair immigration practices. The only answer from the Left, however, is to accept illegal immigration as if it were an unstoppable force and find ways to make the behavior legal. This will only serve to increase the problem.
"The only answer from the Left, however, is to accept illegal immigration as if it were an unstoppable force and find ways to make the behavior legal."
Throughout history this type of immigration - by desperate people who lack basic necessities - has indeed been an unstoppable force. And all of our efforts to stop it have only lead to more deaths in the remote desert by those who want in, and hardly any lessening of the numbers that make it. This is simply the background against which this discussion takes place. Refusal to acknowledge it is ignoring reality.
By the way, they are here illegally because it would take 10-20 years to be here legally, if they had any basis for getting in then, which many do not. When you can't feed your family, you don't have 10 years to wait, then be told it will be another 5, then wait some more after that. They're here because they're desperate.
In addition, we need them here. Have you noticed employers' staunch resistance to working, real time ID checks on their employees? Our economy would suffer significant damage without "illegal aliens" filling the employment niche they fill.
continued...
"By the way, they are here illegally because it would take 10-20 years to be here legally, if they had any basis for getting in then, which many do not."
Really? Are you saying that all 12-15M (low estimate) have considered what it would take and would like to legally obtain US citizenship? Further, you seem to recognize there is a basis for achieving legal citizenship status - that good. The basis for accepting immigration legally is outlined in law. Just b/c you can't get a high paying job - or any job - is not a good reason to break the law and steal from citizens from another country. Tempting, yes. But not ethically correct. Maybe it is time for a new revolution south of our border. To form a more perfect Mexican Union, which allows citizens of that country to pursue happiness.
"When you can't feed your family, you don't have 10 years to wait, then be told it will be another 5, then wait some more after that. They're here because they're desperate."
Yes, desperate. But not desperate enough to organize. Not desperate enough to make their country better.
"In addition, we need them here. Have you noticed employers' staunch resistance to working, real time ID checks on their employees? Our economy would suffer significant damage without "illegal aliens" filling the employment niche they fill."
I agree with your logic. We "need" them here because they are the lowest priced labor available. The free market will exploit this kind of worker every time. Wouldn't it be more ethical to require businesses to hire only legal immigrants, which would create a short-term labor shortage, thus driving up wages for those here legally? And when we can't get enough legal labor, businesses in the US begin moving operations to Mexico to access cheaper labor markets? Isn't that better than welfare and low-wage jobs? Those who are anti-free trade do not recognize that it's better to enable people to work in their own countries at market wages than to lock down trade and create false labor shortages. In that event, prices increase while wages decrease - a lose-lose situation.
Let's take this one step at a time:
"Throughout history this type of immigration - by desperate people who lack basic necessities - has indeed been an unstoppable force."
No one is arguing against the notion that migration occurs b/c of need. People have needs and they relocate to meet those needs. The only thing that makes migration illegal is the existence of the modern nation state. If the only thing that addressed the need of migration was the use of natural resources - i.e., moving from a draught-stricken area to ane flourishing under sufficient hydration where one could gather food - then all of us could claim equal and free access to the naturally provided resources. But in societies that requires taxes to establish legal frameworks to promote personal, extended risk to promote a long-lasting, positive welfare, immigration without standards and expectations is destructive. It is ethical to allow a nomadic culture to thrive off the labor of a planning culture (a society mature enough to build delayed gratification into its institutions)?
"And all of our efforts to stop it have only lead to more deaths in the remote desert by those who want in, and hardly any lessening of the numbers that make it."
Your statement infers that we've attempted all possible ways to stop it when, in fact, we have not. It's just that all the methods we have tried have not succeeded. There are other methods. In many states if illegals are caught they are given a court date and released. And almost none make it back to court, as directed.
"This is simply the background against which this discussion takes place. Refusal to acknowledge it is ignoring reality."
Your characterization of the situation to this point suggests you are only thinking about recent illegal immigration to the USA. The "background" you address is a very brief period of time.
Anon 11:12:
I truly appreciate the tone of your response, which is reasonable and thoughtful, and not an ideological diatribe. But I still think you're wrong.
In Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, the main character and protagonist is sent to prison (20 years hard labor) in France for stealing a loaf of bread. He was unbdoubtedly ethically wrong, right? Well, you learn that his sister's children were starving (in a serious economic downturn with widespread food shortages). The ethics suddenly become a little more blurry ... at least to me.
That is closer to what's at issue here. Forget the macro-issues for just a moment. Imagine you're a dirt poor Mexican husband and father trying to feed and shelter your family. Is your first thought to change the entire structure of Mexican society or to feed your family? And if committing the equivilant of a misdemeanor (illegal entry) is the best bet you see to feeding and clothing your family, are you really going to feel like a terrible person for breaking that law? I wouldn't.
I saw Le Miserable in London. Fantastic. But let's look at facts. South of the border the people are hungry for opportunity. But not for their next meal. And they had food yesterday and the day before. Photographs of men and women, boys and girls running accross the open country in Arizona or Texas look nothing like the images of malnourished children and adults from the Sudan. This is not the human tragedy and societal emergency you seem to think it is. Jean Valjean is not emblematic of illegal alien decision making in the present day.
Further, my arguments do not address how illegal aliens feel about breaking US law. The question is this: why are they coming? Answer: Because their people (citizens of their countries) have ignored their needs. If this were not the case the people would change governments to create changing contexts for the poor. Instead, the people and governments of countries that are the source of the flow of illegal immigration count on people like you to make up for their ignorance or lack of caring.
We can take a micro approach - create service systems in Mexico. Build trade schools and jr. colleges in Mexico. Instead of adding to our welfare system here, go there and do something about it.
The US govt. must work on a macro scale. Failing to enforce existing laws or passing weak laws and failing to address trade issues does not help. Further, international aid transfers and economic development partnerships should be on the table as leverage to prompt Mexico and other countries work to positively give would-be illegal aliens a reason to stay home. But the Mexican govt. does not want to cooperate; it wants us to take care of those form who they have no desire to work with.
Just for the record folks, being an undocumented alien in the US is not a criminal offense. It is in fact an administrative and civil matter. Of course, if someone who is undocumented commits a crime, he/she could be charged with a criminal offense; but lack of papers is not such an offense.
You're not obfuscating, are you, Larry?
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
Civil or criminal offense - either one is illegal.
My point is simply that these folks--by a gigantic majority--are not criminals.
Exactly as I said: the first offense is the equivilant of a Class B misdemeanor, barely more than a traffic ticket.
I agree we need to deal with the matter on a macro scale as well. We can do that, at least in part, by allowing productive immigrants (yes, even ones who entered illegally) who have been here for, let's say, 7 or 10 years or more (this could be the subject of debate) and have broken no serious laws (felons) to become legal. Add to that a reasonable guest worker program or some other means of legal entry for the future. Without some way for many of the folks already here to become legal as part of any macro solution we simply haven't addressed the problem and still have millions of 'ghosts' in the system, which is not only sad for them, but just unworkable.
I agree most Mexicans are not actually starving, but they do face grinding poverty with no hope or way out. Symbolically I stick by my Jean Valjean analogy.
(I saw Les Miserables in London, too. It was great. But the book is better - much more depth and subtlety.)
Unfortunately, I must confess - I've have a few traffic tickets and have never been subject to the penalties noted in the law cited above.
This is not a minor offense and the law acknowledges this with an array of stiff penalties on the very first offense.
What part of the AZ law do you have problems with? Not the law as reported in the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. The Law on the AZ books: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070p.htm.
Argue about the real law.
Here's a tangent: What is "grinding poverty?" Does it's grinding quality somehow place some exta burden upon US legislation or consciense that is different than other levels of poverty?
I think you're suggesting a desire to be compassionate. Here's a twist: citizens of centrally controlled economies give very little of their personal income to charity; those in free-market economies give much more. In total, government and personal income giving in free market economies far exceeds the combined govt. and personal giving in centrally controlled economies. It seems as though collective charity is not worth much. If you want to express charity toward those in poverty, turn people loose with their own money.
I think you've over reacted: Why are the liberals so upset over Arizona's legislation. It's one policy out of 50. New Mexico and California. Do you expect such policy to be uniform across all 50 states, IF this is a free nation governed by its people?
You are supporting your arguments with emotional language and the plotline of a musical. Meanwhile, hospitals have closed, illegal aliens are committing crimes (including murder), and the cost of law enforcement an and incarceration are increasing at taxpayers's expense. The good people of Arizona are fed up with the federal government's inaction.
I read this and other liberal blogs b/c I want to test the reasoning - the structure of the arguments. So far I am not too impressed.
Still waiting.
Post a Comment