In a just society, nobody should be unfairly advantaged or unfairly disadvantaged by the luck of their birth. Birthrights and caste systems are unjust because the recipient of a birthright becomes entitled to an unfair advantage throughout life while those stuck in a caste system have very little opportunity to succeed and very little control over their own individual destiny.
Immigration in America has suffered through years and years of bad immigrations policy that has created a birthright for some and a caste system for others. Most of the problems ascribed to illegal immigration are not caused by illegal immigrants. Almost all of the problems ascribed to illegal immigration are problems associated with the lack of enforcement and the manipulation of American laws and public policies.
There are many business and political leaders in America and Mexico who benefit from the current immigration system. The government of Mexico benefits from a system where some of its citizens can move illegally to America, find a job, receive a tax payer funded education, receive subsidized health care, and send parts of a paycheck back to Mexico in order to support remaining family members. This system of illegal immigration keeps American dollars flowing into Mexico, helping to support the economy of Mexico, and reducing the pressure on the government of Mexico to reform.
Construction, farming, hotels, landscaping, and many other businesses in America benefit from a system which supplies a never ending source of inexpensive unskilled labor. These unskilled laborers themselves are rarely able to afford the services of the businesses that utilize illegal immigrants. This system of illegal immigration keeps the prices lower, the profits higher, and maintains the growth potential of the businesses who utilize undocumented laborers. It is a system that also punishes all of the honest businesses that obey the law because it is more expensive for a business to follow the law.
Most Americans want to punish illegal immigrants and business that hire illegal immigrants either through existing laws or new legislation with even stiffer penalties. Some Americans, including President Bush, want to create a two tier system of caste for guest workers. At the same time, almost nobody is in favor of granting amnesty to any illegal immigrant regardless of how long they have been in America. The conventional wisdom is that a grant of amnesty will encourage more Mexicans to break the law and come to America illegally with the hope of eventually obtaining their own amnesty.
As American citizens, we have a right to vote for leaders and laws, but we should be very careful about supporting leaders and laws that change the basic nature of American freedom and American justice. Stricter enforcement of existing laws, new laws with stiffer penalties, a thirty foot wall separating Mexico from America, and a guest worker program do not represent a move toward more freedom and justice. All of these solutions would represent a significant turn away from freedom and justice.
It is time for the government of the United States, the government of Mexico, the businesses in America who hire illegal immigrants, and the citizens of America, to find the rectitude to begin making and enforcing an immigration policy that allows Mexicans who believe in America to live in America, work in America, contribute to America, and become American citizens without having the stigma of second class status. It is time for Americans to quit claiming a birthright that is fundamentally unjust and fundamentally un-American.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
David:
Are you recommending that all cartographers "drag and drop" the U.S./Mexico border North to the Canada/U.S. border; or "drag and drop" the U.S/Mexico Border South to the Mexico/Guatemala border? If neither of these, please take another crack at your point---at least for my dense sake.
Thanks.
Derek Simmons
Hi Derek,
Thanks for asking!
My post has more to do with the attitude of Americans than it has to do with a solution to the problem of illegal immigration. I know we can’t all of a sudden open our borders and allow everyone and anyone to move to America. We also can’t continue the present policy of allowing illegal immigrants in America and then treat them as second class citizens. I know they are breaking the law when they come here, but so is every business and every person who hires an illegal immigrant. We support the current system every time we get our car washed, every time we eat an orange, and every time we stay in a hotel.
There are many illegal immigrants who have lived almost all of their life in America. They have homes, and relatives, and jobs in America. They have none of these in Mexico. Cracking down now on illegal immigrants and the businesses that employ illegal immigrants would be inhumane without allowing for amnesty first.
Long term, I do think it would benefit Mexico and America to have freedom of movement between our two countries. There is plenty of land and resources in both of our counties to support many times the current population. I think the government of Mexico would start to get their act together when Mexicans start to move to America and become American citizens and quit sending American dollars back to Mexico.
One of my co-workers was born in Mexico. His mom drove across the boarder every day to take him to a school in San Diego. He told me that it is not uncommon for the Mexicans who are in America illegally to send half of their earnings back to Mexico. Also, he is one of the best men I have ever met. He is a tremendous worker with the kind of integrity that I admire and that is in very short supply these days.
Locking the boarders and sending them home is not a moral solution at this point.
David:
Thanks for taking another crack at it for my benefit. I did benefit. I have no doubt that your anecdotal experiences with "illegals" could be substituted for mine, and perhaps might even be the basis for generalizations concerning the nature of those who are here as "illegals."
While I think it is politically impossible to round up and deport the real or imagined "11 million", that--to me--is not the same as characterizing such a move as immoral. I don't think it would be though I don't advocate it.
In terms of the unintended consequences of the Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill--and the amnesty legislation that will undoubtedly come out of the House/Senate conference,--I think it is clear that we will again be two factions of hand-wringers within a decade or less, each side lining up pretty much where they line up today. And in the meantime millions more will have migrated to El Norte to await the next round of impotent American hand-wringing and the next brass-ring of amnesty. And somewhere in there we will undoubtedly have what we will look back on as the brown equivalent of the Watts riots
I suppose there are two points of absolute yet civil disagreement between our two positions. One: I would have no qualms, moral, legal, ethical, religious, practical, political, or otherwise, to the immediate criminal enforcement of existing--or new more "draconian" laws--aimed at employers. My experience came long ago when I was a prosecutor and saw how hypocritical we were in our enforcement efforts at a crimes like prostitution and shop-lifting. I'll use prostitution as the most apt analogy.
Thirty years ago there was wide-spread prostitution. Today when sex outside marriage is so freely available I guess it may not be the problem it was then. But in any case, at that time society claimed it was interested in "cleaning it up." And so the same sorry street-walkers were rounded up by the same sorry cops on the same sorry beats night after sorry night and "run through the system." They were back turning tricks within hours of their arrests.
There were two ways of dealing with this "problem." Either declare it legal to procure and pay for sex--the Bush program[ and Kennedy/McCain]when applied to migrant workers, and simply define the problem away. Or, you go after the employers and dry up the demand.
In the context of prostitution, when employers--the "Johns"--are the ones regularly arrested, the "tricks" disappear. It is a simply matter of supply and demand and demand dries up. The same principle applies in our labor markets. As between the illegal migrant worker and the legal American employer, it is the employer that is in the superior position to know the law and know that he/she is breaking it. Throw a Donald Bren in jail if companies like the Irvine Co. were to be found hiring illegals, and the demand for illegal workers would dry up in no time.
Secondly: if we were to effectively close our borders and either send all those here illegally back to their country of origin; or, as a lesser measure we were to make sure that no more than the number for which quotas and regulations were met get in, the result would be intense pressure on the corrupt government of Mexico to change. Mexico's Northern border is both its social safety net and its social safety valve. The pressure that would otherwise build up in Mexico to force change leaks across our border Juan by Juan, and coyote carrier by coyote carrier. Enforce our borders and we in America will change by having the true costs of goods and services that are primarily provided with cheap illegal labor become more transparent; and Mexico will change by the legitimate demands of the millions of "entrepreneurial" Juans and Marias who instead of seeking their fortunes North, must focus instead on Mexico City rather than Los Angeles for the secular salvation.
Whether your view is correct or mine, the problem is one we voters/consumers created and perpetuate. And we can wring our hands and point our fingers at the politicians until the problem gets worse, but having enjoyed the ease of doing nothing but enjoying our neatly trimmed lawns and regularly washed cars at prices so cheap we saw no reason to do it ourselves, or have our teen-aged sons do it, we my friend are reaping and will continue to reap the whirlwind.
Derek Simmons
Hi Derek,
I am 100% in favor of enforcing laws. Without law enforcement, we don’t have a just society. In fact, without law enforcement, all we have is those with power abusing those without power. The law in America is supposed to create justice, not injustice.
My personal opinion is that we need more immigrants, not less immigrants. However, if the law says less immigrants, the law needs to be followed, not the opinion of David M. Smith.
However, it is a big moral problem to say illegal immigrants need to be sent back to Mexico when some of them, maybe even most of them, don’t even have a home in Mexico. Some Mexicans are now 21-years-old and have been living in America illegally from the time they were 1-year-old. Twenty one years of un-enforcement has created an unjust situation if we all of a sudden start enforcing the law without some kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants and employers, although I am less concerned with the employers as I am with the families of illegal immigrants.
Since amnesty is the political dirty word of the month, how do we start enforcing the law AND treat the Mexicans justly who have been in America for 20 years contributing to everything American?
David:
Let's just start with this little segment of your response:
"Some Mexicans are now 21-years-old and have been living in America illegally from the time they were 1-year-old. Twenty one years of un-enforcement has created an unjust situation if we all of a sudden start enforcing the law without some kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants and employers, although I am less concerned with the employers as I am with the families of illegal immigrants."
Firstly, while I am sure there are Mexicans who have been here decades illegally--even since they were one year old--that is clearly the exception and not the rule. If the majority of "the 11 million" fit your profile, then the "illegal immigration crisis" would have manifested itself decades ago. Let's use 1986 as our "tare date."
That was when the "Wilsonian" immigration bill--you know: the bill to end all bills--was enacted as "Simpson/Mazzoli."
As one who lauds the "rule of law" you understand that actual knowledge of the language of a law--or even of its existence--is not required for enforcing the law. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Mexicans did not know of the illegality of their presence--a stretch I am having to choke down even for this argument. The American employers of these Mexicans DID know; and for those who didn't, So what? Try telling the officer that even though you knew the speed limit was 55mph, he had patrolled the same beat for years and must have seen you driving 75mph every day of the week. Therefore, I'm not guilty; or at least you can't enforce the law against me. And since that won't work with the officer, try telling it to the judge. There are actually judges who will buy that sort of specious plea.
So for starters, I think you have created an "hombre de paja."
Next: Is anyone suggesting that the money and goods accumulated while here illegally, be stripped from them as part of a deportation? I haven't seen that even suggested.
So the fact that they do not have a "house" in Mexico to go home to, is either evidence that they don't have a house here to leave--or they would have $$$ to acquire a better house in Mexico--or; that they never had a house in Mexico to begin with so that anything material wealth they have accumulated here--AND TAKE BACK TO MEXICO WITH THEM--is more than they would have had if they had never migrated North anyway.
In your earlier response, you said that we can not treat Mexicans here illegally as "second class citizens." But of course we can. AND SHOULD! While there is no such thing as a "Citizen, Second Class", you either are or are not a "citizen", we as a nation do and should treat aliens differently than citizens. And though we are supposed to treat ILLEGAL aliens even differently still, we have not as a nation enforced our laws that draw these distinctions.
But I shudder to think that you advocate this position, so please, tell me I've gotten it wrong:
Any man, woman, or child, who succeeds in crossing our border with Mexico in violation of our sovereignty and laws is, ipso facto, to be treated as if they were citizens of this country.
Man, I hope I have mis-understood you.
Like I said in my earlier comment: I am not advocating mass deportation, though I do not see it as "wrong", just "wrong-headed." But if the law becomes such that mass deportations are required, then the dignity to be afforded the Mexicans and others that are being sent back to their countries of origin, is that to be afforded any human. They need the dignity afforded to any American who buys a ticket on and rides Greyhound home. Except the buses will be free and probably painted with INS or Homeland Security logos.
Derek Simmons
Hi Derek,
Thanks for continuing the dialogue. I wish there were more spokespeople in the media attempting dialogue instead of talking over each other.
Changing a speed limit law or all of a sudden enforcing a speed limit law is not quite the same as all of a sudden enforcing immigration law. In the speed limit law, past actions have no affect on current actions. I could have driven 75 mph for years, but if the current law says the limit is 55 mph, I deserve a ticket.
My position is not based on whether or not the illegal immigrant knew they were breaking the law. By not enforcing immigration law for twenty one years, the American government has given its tacit approval for illegal immigrants to migrate to America. I agree with you that we should start enforcing the law immediately, but I have a moral problem with sending a 21-year-old who was born in Mexico but never lived in Mexico who is much more American than Mexican back to Mexico. I know everyone here illegally does not fit this description, but there is a gradation of descriptions that starts with this person and goes all the way to the illegal immigrant who arrived yesterday and robbed a mini-mart today.
I also need to clarify my point about treating illegal immigrants as second class citizens. I agree with you that if immigration law was enforced, illegal immigrants are not only second class citizens, but they are law breakers who deserve jail time and punishment. However, if our government is allowing illegal immigrants to live in America by not enforcing the immigration law, then I don’t think they should be treated as second class citizens.
So let me clear, the law, whatever the law, needs to be enforced or changed or repealed, but enforcement can’t be retroactive and fair and just in the case of illegal immigration. Man, I hope you understand me.
Also, if you aren’t advocating mass deportation, how is an illegal going to be able to work if the government starts enforcing laws against employers hiring illegal immigrants. Are you comfortable with a man who is supporting a family to be fired from a job he has held for twenty years?
David:
If peyote were legal and I were inclined to induce hallucinations, I imagine this would be the speech President Bush would deliver on his return from Cancun:
"Good evening my fellow Americans:
10 days from now—at 8AM on Monday, April 3rd, 2006 Washington, D.C. time, I have directed that Federal agents start the immediate round-up and arrest of all Americans who are employers of any person or persons illegally in the United States of America. In order to make the most efficient use of our Federal agents, I have directed that all enforcement efforts for the first 30 day period of this round-up shall be directed at the Presidents, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and human resource directors of legal entities that do business in the United States and have more than 100 employees, at least one of whom is reasonably believed by the arresting federal agent to be in the United States illegally. I have directed and expect that these agents will go after the biggest fish to fry first. Big headlines will be a great aid in our enforcement efforts.
At the end of the this initial 30 day period I will have a report on my desk covering the results of the first 21 days effort. Forty-one days from today I will again come before you not only to report the results of this initial effort, but also to report the category of employers that will be targeted for the second 30 day period of these round-ups.
Further, if there are resources available, the officers in the field are under orders to also arrest any persons they discover that are known to the officer or reasonably believed to be in the United States of America illegally.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona has agreed to help us create holding areas to detain the arrested employers until acquittal after trial, or until they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the custodial agency that they are not employers of any persons, legal or illegally here in the United States. There will be no bail available for such persons and trial will be held and sentencing imposed within 60 days of arrest or the person shall be released and may not be prosecuted for any act of employing a person in the United States of America prior to the date of their initial arrest.
At some point in the future which I will not announce in advance, I will shift the primary enforcement focus from the persons who employ persons who are in the United States of America illegally, to the round-up and arrest of persons in the United States of America illegally. The futurity and unannounced nature of this shift will allow all those who are in the United States of America illegally and who do not desire to be themselves rounded-up and arrest for such illegal presence, an opportunity to return across our borders to their countries of origin.
Again-- at some point in the future which I will not announce in advance—I will undertake to execute immigration reforms that I fully expect will by then have been sent to me by Congress. Although I have never vetoed a bill, I hereby promise Congress and the American people that I will veto every immigration bill that comes to my desk and every non-immigration bill to which some immigration provision has been attached if such bills or attachments in any way provide for eventual citizenship of any person now or in the future who is in the United States of America illegally; except those who have first returned to their country of origin and within said country made application through the U.S. Consulate for such permissions to enter the United States of America as the Congress shall have then provided.
I hope I have made myself clear. Thank you, and good-night."Good evening my fellow Americans:
10 days from now—at 8AM on Monday, April 3rd, 2006 Washington, D.C. time, I have directed that Federal agents start the immediate round-up and arrest of all Americans who are employers of any person or persons illegally in the United States of America. In order to make the most efficient use of our Federal agents, I have directed that all enforcement efforts for the first 30 day period of this round-up shall be directed at the Presidents, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, and human resource directors of legal entities that do business in the United States and have more than 100 employees, at least one of whom is reasonably believed by the arresting federal agent to be in the United States illegally. I have directed and expect that these agents will go after the biggest fish to fry first. Big headlines will be a great aid in our enforcement efforts.
At the end of the this initial 30 day period I will have a report on my desk covering the results of the first 21 days effort. Forty-one days from today I will again come before you not only to report the results of this initial effort, but also to report the category of employers that will be targeted for the second 30 day period of these round-ups.
Further, if there are resources available, the officers in the field are under orders to also arrest any persons they discover that are known to the officer or reasonably believed to be in the United States of America illegally.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona has agreed to help us create holding areas to detain the arrested employers until acquittal after trial, or until they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the custodial agency that they are not employers of any persons, legal or illegally here in the United States. There will be no bail available for such persons and trial will be held and sentencing imposed within 60 days of arrest or the person shall be released and may not be prosecuted for any act of employing a person in the United States of America prior to the date of their initial arrest.
At some point in the future which I will not announce in advance, I will shift the primary enforcement focus from the persons who employ persons who are in the United States of America illegally, to the round-up and arrest of persons in the United States of America illegally. The futurity and unannounced nature of this shift will allow all those who are in the United States of America illegally and who do not desire to be themselves rounded-up and arrest for such illegal presence, an opportunity to return across our borders to their countries of origin.
Again-- at some point in the future which I will not announce in advance—I will undertake to execute immigration reforms that I fully expect will by then have been sent to me by Congress. Although I have never vetoed a bill, I hereby promise Congress and the American people that I will veto every immigration bill that comes to my desk and every non-immigration bill to which some immigration provision has been attached if such bills or attachments in any way provide for eventual citizenship of any person now or in the future who is in the United States of America illegally; except those who have first returned to their country of origin and within said country made application through the U.S. Consulate for such permissions to enter the United States of America as the Congress shall have then provided.
I hope I have made myself clear. Thank you, and good-night."
But since that ain't gonna happen, I guess I'll just put my feet up, sip a Scotch and soda and watch Everybody Loves Raymond re-runs.
Derek Simmons
PS: Yes; I am comfortable with that, as comfortable as I am with the vagaries of life visiting themselves on any of us. But I do think you are using a rhetorical device rather than reality when you focus on the "twenty-year" veteran of the "immigration wars." That example--though real--is not representative of "The 11 million."
Hi Derek,
We certainly agree on one thing. IT ain’t gonna happen. Government is not going to start enforcing the law and Americans aren’t going to start welcoming more immigrants. I’ll take mine on the rocks!
I would love to see businesses and CEO’s punished who hire illegal immigrants, but I don’t know how to punish a business or a CEO without punishing a lot of other people.
My example is a little extreme, but it is not rhetorical. There are lots of people who were born in Mexico who grew up in America for the last 21 years. Most of these people did not choose to break the law. Their parents chose for them and the government looked the other way. In many cases, the government even supported the decision through welfare programs. I really believe amnesty is the only just way to treat most of these people at this point.
Great speech, BTW. You could have been a Marine. Were you ever in the service? You’ve probably told me before, but I don’t remember.
NAVY! We're the ones whose name is on every paycheck a Marine cashes.
Semper Fi.
Derek Simmns
Post a Comment