Immigration, legal and illegal
Apr. 13th, 2006 05:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeSo, the Senate is trying to work out a bill on immigration, although it looks as though they won't pass the House bill which made illegal immigration a felony. CNN has been showing a lot of programs on illegal immigration lately. I have some fairly complex feelings on the matter, and I've talked about them on my message board. I'll start off by saying I wholeheartedly support LEGAL immigration. I think immigration is what makes this wonderful country relevant, that we have always encouraged people who seek a better life to come here, to the point that our Statue of Liberty explicitly welcomes them. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... I played Emma Lazarus in Lady of Copper and always loved those words. I even think we should pass legislation that makes it much easier to become a citizen; if we can liberalize the laws, more people can come.
However. Legal immigration is just that--legal--and I have a real problem with illegal immigration, with people who ignore our laws time and again, and who cynically exploit our constitution to have their children born here in order to make it harder for them to be deported. I get extremely impatient with those who claim "they're just doing work Americans won't do." I say bullshit. I've worked plenty of crappy jobs, for little money, because that was what was available. I work at a dinner theater during changeover, and got paid less than minimum wage, in cash. I scraped gum off the bottoms of the tables for that money. I've stood in the cold in front of Grand Central Station, handing out magazines. If a person needs to make rent, you'd be surprised at what they'll do. Don't tell me what jobs Americans won't do; that's insulting to hard-working Americans. (And not to mention--the illegals in this article apparently don't want to work even some jobs that are OVER minimum wage--in the one hand, by refusing the work, they may help drive up the wages. On the other, I don't EVER want to hear about how American won't work for XYZ money, when even some illegals won't!)
Oh, and I should make it clear I'm talking about economic immigration, not political refugees. I think political refugees should be treated differently--fleeing from a dictator who wants to exterminate you because of your color or creed is very different from fleeing poverty.
And what leaves the worst taste in my mouth, is the sense of entitlement. You came here illegally and you're DEMANDING justice, DEMANDING driver's licenses, DEMANDING amnesty. Where do you get off demanding these things? You broke the law. Justice DEMANDS you be deported. You DO have a right to freedom of speech, to be treated with dignity, to all the basic human rights we all enjoy. But US citizenship is not a human right. When I was learning to drive, I was told many times that a license is a privilege, not a right. If you can't be here legally, you shouldn't have a license.
It's a complicated issue, because some people are advancing ideological arguments, some economic, some praagmatic. To me, ideologically--someone who breaks the laws to come here, doesn't have much respect for this country, because we are a nation of laws. That's what a democracy is--we have a Consitution, we put the law above the office (remember that, George Bush). I read one truly idiotic comment on a Washington Post blog that said "on what moral grounds do you stand to make judgment on who is legal or who is not." Uh, you're missing the point. It's NOT a moral judgement, it's a legal one--there are laws about how to enter the country, and illegal aliens are breaking them. It gets even worse because whether cynically or not, people who support amnesty for illegals often accuse the other side of racism, which is enough to paralyze any argument in this coutnry. To be honest, it's difficult for me to separate how I feel on this issue from how I feel about Latino men, who have harassed me MANY TIMES not only in my neighborhood but down in Virginia as well--grabbing me, touching me, calling out to me. One guy followed me for two blocks. And yet, I have no problem with Latina women, and I would say the same thing to illegal Chinese, or Irish, or Russian people--do it the right way. Don't take advantage of our split focus--just because we are allocating most of our manpower to fighting terrorism, doesn't mean you should slip in the back door. (But--let's be honest--it's not a huge problem with aliens from those countries, because we don't share a border with them. But the de facto face of illegal immigration in the US is Mexican, because half of them are, per CNN.)
Re: the guest worker suggestion: I don't know if that's such a good idea. Guest workers might end up being a permanent second class, never feeling like part of the mother culture which, as we've seen in France, is bad policy. When immigrants do come here legally and are pursuing citizenship, they're invested in the US, they are part of the culture. On the other hand, how is the Guest Worker program any different from the Green Card program?
Re: amnesty. Baaaaad idea, IMO. We tried that in 1986 and it certainly didn't solve the problem. Again, ideologically, the way to enforce law is not to issue wholesale pardons. In addition, Mexicans on the other side of the border are anticipating this legislation and illegal crossing have really jumped recently--the thinking is that if they're in the country when/if the amnesties happen, they'll have their foot in the door. So even talking about it has had a bad effect.
I found this on the Washington Post website--I think it's a pretty good, rancor-free summation of my position (my emphases), although I don't agree with some of the suggestions:
The rhetoric needs to be turned down a notch on all sides of the debate. The US has a rich cultural diversity that reflects the broad swath of immigrants that have chosen to pursue opportunity here. The opponents of restrictive immigrant legislation in Congress have been successful in painting the issue as "anti-immigrant" rather than a debate on how to enhance the security of US borders, create enforceable workplace regulations, and what to do with the 11 million illegals already here. Clearly, the current system isn't working. We taught the illegal immigrant community in 1986 that if you stick around long enough, we'll concede and grant you legal status. 20 years later, we have a huge illegal backlog awaiting the same treatment. Laws that give employers strong legal protection in demanding difficult to forge documentation of immigration status, and perhaps even something as radical as denying automatic US citizenship to the new born offspring of illegals in the country, would be first steps. Maybe also a national biomorphic database - fingerprints, eye scans, DNA - of those caught trying to enter illegally that would preclude you from EVER being eligible for citizenship. The vast majority of the illegal immigrants are here to improve their lot in life. It's hard to fault them for having hopes and dreams. Yet a country based on the rule of law can not allow would-be residents and citizens to selectively choose which laws they follow. We should encourage the best, brightest, and hard-working from around the world to seek legal entry to the United States and set strong disincentives to turn away those who would subvert the system. A country that cannot control its borders cannot control its destiny.
However. Legal immigration is just that--legal--and I have a real problem with illegal immigration, with people who ignore our laws time and again, and who cynically exploit our constitution to have their children born here in order to make it harder for them to be deported. I get extremely impatient with those who claim "they're just doing work Americans won't do." I say bullshit. I've worked plenty of crappy jobs, for little money, because that was what was available. I work at a dinner theater during changeover, and got paid less than minimum wage, in cash. I scraped gum off the bottoms of the tables for that money. I've stood in the cold in front of Grand Central Station, handing out magazines. If a person needs to make rent, you'd be surprised at what they'll do. Don't tell me what jobs Americans won't do; that's insulting to hard-working Americans. (And not to mention--the illegals in this article apparently don't want to work even some jobs that are OVER minimum wage--in the one hand, by refusing the work, they may help drive up the wages. On the other, I don't EVER want to hear about how American won't work for XYZ money, when even some illegals won't!)
Oh, and I should make it clear I'm talking about economic immigration, not political refugees. I think political refugees should be treated differently--fleeing from a dictator who wants to exterminate you because of your color or creed is very different from fleeing poverty.
And what leaves the worst taste in my mouth, is the sense of entitlement. You came here illegally and you're DEMANDING justice, DEMANDING driver's licenses, DEMANDING amnesty. Where do you get off demanding these things? You broke the law. Justice DEMANDS you be deported. You DO have a right to freedom of speech, to be treated with dignity, to all the basic human rights we all enjoy. But US citizenship is not a human right. When I was learning to drive, I was told many times that a license is a privilege, not a right. If you can't be here legally, you shouldn't have a license.
It's a complicated issue, because some people are advancing ideological arguments, some economic, some praagmatic. To me, ideologically--someone who breaks the laws to come here, doesn't have much respect for this country, because we are a nation of laws. That's what a democracy is--we have a Consitution, we put the law above the office (remember that, George Bush). I read one truly idiotic comment on a Washington Post blog that said "on what moral grounds do you stand to make judgment on who is legal or who is not." Uh, you're missing the point. It's NOT a moral judgement, it's a legal one--there are laws about how to enter the country, and illegal aliens are breaking them. It gets even worse because whether cynically or not, people who support amnesty for illegals often accuse the other side of racism, which is enough to paralyze any argument in this coutnry. To be honest, it's difficult for me to separate how I feel on this issue from how I feel about Latino men, who have harassed me MANY TIMES not only in my neighborhood but down in Virginia as well--grabbing me, touching me, calling out to me. One guy followed me for two blocks. And yet, I have no problem with Latina women, and I would say the same thing to illegal Chinese, or Irish, or Russian people--do it the right way. Don't take advantage of our split focus--just because we are allocating most of our manpower to fighting terrorism, doesn't mean you should slip in the back door. (But--let's be honest--it's not a huge problem with aliens from those countries, because we don't share a border with them. But the de facto face of illegal immigration in the US is Mexican, because half of them are, per CNN.)
Re: the guest worker suggestion: I don't know if that's such a good idea. Guest workers might end up being a permanent second class, never feeling like part of the mother culture which, as we've seen in France, is bad policy. When immigrants do come here legally and are pursuing citizenship, they're invested in the US, they are part of the culture. On the other hand, how is the Guest Worker program any different from the Green Card program?
Re: amnesty. Baaaaad idea, IMO. We tried that in 1986 and it certainly didn't solve the problem. Again, ideologically, the way to enforce law is not to issue wholesale pardons. In addition, Mexicans on the other side of the border are anticipating this legislation and illegal crossing have really jumped recently--the thinking is that if they're in the country when/if the amnesties happen, they'll have their foot in the door. So even talking about it has had a bad effect.
I found this on the Washington Post website--I think it's a pretty good, rancor-free summation of my position (my emphases), although I don't agree with some of the suggestions:
The rhetoric needs to be turned down a notch on all sides of the debate. The US has a rich cultural diversity that reflects the broad swath of immigrants that have chosen to pursue opportunity here. The opponents of restrictive immigrant legislation in Congress have been successful in painting the issue as "anti-immigrant" rather than a debate on how to enhance the security of US borders, create enforceable workplace regulations, and what to do with the 11 million illegals already here. Clearly, the current system isn't working. We taught the illegal immigrant community in 1986 that if you stick around long enough, we'll concede and grant you legal status. 20 years later, we have a huge illegal backlog awaiting the same treatment. Laws that give employers strong legal protection in demanding difficult to forge documentation of immigration status, and perhaps even something as radical as denying automatic US citizenship to the new born offspring of illegals in the country, would be first steps. Maybe also a national biomorphic database - fingerprints, eye scans, DNA - of those caught trying to enter illegally that would preclude you from EVER being eligible for citizenship. The vast majority of the illegal immigrants are here to improve their lot in life. It's hard to fault them for having hopes and dreams. Yet a country based on the rule of law can not allow would-be residents and citizens to selectively choose which laws they follow. We should encourage the best, brightest, and hard-working from around the world to seek legal entry to the United States and set strong disincentives to turn away those who would subvert the system. A country that cannot control its borders cannot control its destiny.
