Illegal Immigration
My maternal grandparents were part of the "wretched refuse" welcomed by the Statue of Liberty, having come here from Italy a few years before World War I.. After they divorced, he became a naturalized citizen in the 1930s. Grandma was illiterate, and though she lived here over 80 years and to one month shy of her 102nd birthday, she never became a citizen.
Research on my paternal ancestors, about whom I knew nothing, showed they came to America from Germany, Switzerland, France and Denmark over the course of many years, from before the Revolutionary War to the 1879 arrival of my German Grandfather, who was naturalized in 1885.
Next month my family will welcome a new immigrant as my son Anthony brings his Thai wife, Pat, to America. Immigration as a share of American population growth has been rising steadily since World War II, reaching 37% in 2002, but it has slowed since 9/11. Anthony and Pat have complied with all the requirements for her to enter America legally, which is the same way all our previous family members came, as far as I know.
Historically, the vast majority of immigrants begin life in their new country as cheap labor, or as unpaid labor in the case of the more than 10 million kidnaped slaves from Africa. Immigration has traditionally been encouraged by business interests and other promoters of economic growth and is still seen by economists as essential for growth of the American economy.
Hispanics have made up about one-third of legal immigrants during the late 1900s. Poor living conditions, proximity to the US and ease of access through Mexico make immigration from Latin America, both legal and illegal, very appealing. Immigrant friendly communities and employers welcome these new arrivals with few questions asked. False papers can be readily purchased if necessary and eager employers will not challenge their authenticity, as CBS recently showed on 60 Minutes II.
Traditional opposition to immigration has come from xenophobes and low level workers fearing job loss. Politicians have played both sides of the issue and the resulting laws and enforcement have vacillated throughout our history, with 20th Century policy being built on quotas largely racial in nature. Vigilante groups have been organized to patrol borders for illegal immigrants. Unconstitutional voter measures have been passed to target illegal aliens. But the vigilantes are hopelessly outnumbered and the Courts have properly upheld Constitutional rights.
The Hispanic immigration tide continues with no sign of ebbing. Adequate border enforcement to stop Hispanics is not something for which taxpayers are willing to pay. Individuals who contribute significant money to politicians are not likely to make stopping illegal Hispanic immigration a top issue. Business interests and farmers who make political contributions do not want the tide stemmed. Hispanics vote in large enough numbers to far outweigh vigilante voters, and their voting patterns are close enough to those of non-Hispanic voters to avoid identifying them predominantly with either political party.
How do you tell a legal from an illegal? Not by anything other than paperwork. In fact, if quotas and processing costs were eliminated, these people could all be legal. Why don’t we let them in? There are proposals for a limited amnesty and for more temporary worker permits. Our low birth rate has caused concerns for the future of Social Security. More legal Hispanic immigrants might assure young Sense readers of an old age with a decent Social Security income. Efforts to deport long time illegal residents and taint their descendants are ridiculously wasteful and on dubious legal ground.
The flood has occurred and continues. Fingers in the dike cannot stop it. We need to consider and adopt a national policy on Hispanic immigration, with components of amnesty, temporary permits and increased quotas, and if that is still not enough to stop the flood of illegal Hispanic immigrants, then we need to spend the money for adequate border enforcement. This is what we need to do, but I do not think it is very high on the agenda of the American people, so I think we will see the status quo continue for several more years.
Research on my paternal ancestors, about whom I knew nothing, showed they came to America from Germany, Switzerland, France and Denmark over the course of many years, from before the Revolutionary War to the 1879 arrival of my German Grandfather, who was naturalized in 1885.
Next month my family will welcome a new immigrant as my son Anthony brings his Thai wife, Pat, to America. Immigration as a share of American population growth has been rising steadily since World War II, reaching 37% in 2002, but it has slowed since 9/11. Anthony and Pat have complied with all the requirements for her to enter America legally, which is the same way all our previous family members came, as far as I know.
Historically, the vast majority of immigrants begin life in their new country as cheap labor, or as unpaid labor in the case of the more than 10 million kidnaped slaves from Africa. Immigration has traditionally been encouraged by business interests and other promoters of economic growth and is still seen by economists as essential for growth of the American economy.
Hispanics have made up about one-third of legal immigrants during the late 1900s. Poor living conditions, proximity to the US and ease of access through Mexico make immigration from Latin America, both legal and illegal, very appealing. Immigrant friendly communities and employers welcome these new arrivals with few questions asked. False papers can be readily purchased if necessary and eager employers will not challenge their authenticity, as CBS recently showed on 60 Minutes II.
Traditional opposition to immigration has come from xenophobes and low level workers fearing job loss. Politicians have played both sides of the issue and the resulting laws and enforcement have vacillated throughout our history, with 20th Century policy being built on quotas largely racial in nature. Vigilante groups have been organized to patrol borders for illegal immigrants. Unconstitutional voter measures have been passed to target illegal aliens. But the vigilantes are hopelessly outnumbered and the Courts have properly upheld Constitutional rights.
The Hispanic immigration tide continues with no sign of ebbing. Adequate border enforcement to stop Hispanics is not something for which taxpayers are willing to pay. Individuals who contribute significant money to politicians are not likely to make stopping illegal Hispanic immigration a top issue. Business interests and farmers who make political contributions do not want the tide stemmed. Hispanics vote in large enough numbers to far outweigh vigilante voters, and their voting patterns are close enough to those of non-Hispanic voters to avoid identifying them predominantly with either political party.
How do you tell a legal from an illegal? Not by anything other than paperwork. In fact, if quotas and processing costs were eliminated, these people could all be legal. Why don’t we let them in? There are proposals for a limited amnesty and for more temporary worker permits. Our low birth rate has caused concerns for the future of Social Security. More legal Hispanic immigrants might assure young Sense readers of an old age with a decent Social Security income. Efforts to deport long time illegal residents and taint their descendants are ridiculously wasteful and on dubious legal ground.
The flood has occurred and continues. Fingers in the dike cannot stop it. We need to consider and adopt a national policy on Hispanic immigration, with components of amnesty, temporary permits and increased quotas, and if that is still not enough to stop the flood of illegal Hispanic immigrants, then we need to spend the money for adequate border enforcement. This is what we need to do, but I do not think it is very high on the agenda of the American people, so I think we will see the status quo continue for several more years.
posted by Tom Blake | 12:38 PM
2 Comments:
The problem of illegal immigrants from Hispanic countries may not be very high on the agenda of American people as Tom says, but he is writing from a state about as far away from Mexico as you can go in the US. In contrast in Arizona, the controversy surrounding this problem elected a barely qualified county attorney. In the 2004 primary election in the fall, Andrew Thomas ran for County Attorney of Maricopa County (Phoenix, county seat). He ran on a platform of stemming the illegal immigration through Mexico. Maricopa County does not border Mexico and illegal immigration is not a big part of the County Attorney's job of running a prosecutor's office, but he found an issue that resonated with the voters. The leaders of the Republican Party endorsed Thomas' main opponent who, they said, had more experience and better qualifications. Unfortunately for him he had an Hispanic name. Thomas won handily. In the general election Thomas faced a person completely unqualified for the office because the Democratic Party in Arizona is very nearly dead despite the fact our governor Janet Napolitano may be a Democratic candidate for President someday. Democratic and Republican leaders both endorsed Thomas who won handily.
Recently Thomas refused to press charges against a member of the Minutemen, a group who are strongly opposed to the open borders we have with Mexico. This group organized a border watch in Arizona. People in this group are ordinary citizens concerned about illegal immigration. They are giving their vacation time to bring their families and their guns to the border areas of Arizona to "help" the Feds enforce the laws. It is a kind of March on Washington of 1963 in reverse. I personally feel, that despite my own feelings on this topic, they have every right to do this provide they don't hurt anyone. And provided they don't create new roads in roadless areas, e.g., around Organ Pipe National Monument.
However, there was an ex-military person who held a car full of illegal immigrants at gunpoint until authorities arrived. The Feds wanted him prosecuted, but Andrew Thomas said the guy was in his rights to hold the immigrants at bay with a gun.
Tom can speak with more authority about the rights of the military guy and the rights of the illegal immigrants. But my point is the problem of illegal immigration is more than an academic interest as Tom seems to imply.
One aspect of this needs to be understood. People are dying as they attempt to cross the border. I'll leave it up to Tom to do the research, but more and more people from Mexico and other places south die a slow and painful death from exposure in the desert or a terrifying quick death from the ever increasing aggressivenees of the "coyotes" whom they pay to guide them across the desert. It used to be that these illegal immigrants only had to be phyically fit to cross over. Now they have to be phyically fit and willing to face the very real prospect that they will die in the crossing. This threat can only be good for the US in the long term, but terrifying for the people involved.
We have always been enriched by the immigrants who have had to face difficulties in their attempts to enter our country.
Examples include the Puritans of New England, the Catholics of Rhode Island, the outcasts of Georgia, the Irish of Boston, New York and everywhere, the Chinese of California, the eastern and southern Europeans of Ellis Island, the Asians of the late 20th century immigration.
The US will be stonger because of these immigrants despite their legal standing, but they will bring change. In two hundred years our great grandchildren might all be speaking
Spanish.
This last weekend I hired a person who did not speak English to clean up my yard. I paid him well and he was happy to get the work. He worked hard, just like all the other immigrants I have hired. My wife admired his skill in triming our overgrown yard.
I'm telling you this so that you understand the other side of this issue. Businesses and indivduals like me are dependent on their labor. Of course we like their wages which are low. (I pay them a little more than minimum wage which is twice what typical businesses pay them.) The issue of their pay is real but far below from their viewpoint of their right to stay in this country.
John from Phoenix
Anna posted a comment elsewhere inquiring about the stand of Catholic politicians on immigartion. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has published a very thorough paper arguing for the morality and wisdom of a program of legalization.
Post a Comment
<< Home