Immigration
The national issue-of-the-moment made its presence known in Reno today as about 400 mostly Latino high school students walked out of class and down to the Federal Courthouse in protest of legislation that passed the House of Representatives yesterday which would, among other things, make it a felony to be an undocumented immigrant in the United States and erect a 700-mile fence along the 2000 mile U.S.-Mexican border. This evening it appears that the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved legislation apparently much less draconian in nature, removing criminal penalties and, according to reports, moving toward some sort of "guest worker" program for immigrants. Although the Senate can begin full debate on the issue of Immigration tomorrow, it remains to be seen if legislation passed by the House and Senate has a prayer of being reconciled any time soon. The bet here is that it won't happen before the Fall election.
In all honesty, I'm not sure what to make of the immigration issue. There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, at least as near as anyone can figure, and that's roughly the population of Ohio. The Pew Hispanic Center says undocumented workers compose one out of twenty members of the nation's workforce. If all of these workers were somehow deported tomorrow (not that that's remotely possible, but for the sake of argument) the economy would be in shambles and American life might well come to a screeching halt, at least for a good long while.
Clearly immigration law needs reform. Not only have immigrant workers become an integral part of the fabric of this country, but these men and women come to America because American businesses want them here. Many immigrants are willing to work jobs that most native-born Americans would turn their nose up at, and for very low pay. While I don't care for exploitative element at play here, nor the fact that this arrangement keeps wages low for all workers immigrant or otherwise, I do recognize that neither the political will nor the practical ability exists to ship 11 million people out of this country and turn our borders into an armed fortress (which still wouldn't work anyway). This is a much thornier political issue than many people realize, and frankly I don't know if there's a "good" way to resolve the situation.
However I can say that I'm not in favor of simply stuffing everyone into some sort of an open-ended 'guest worker' program. Clearly this is what businesses want since it would allow them to keep wages low and benefits practically non-existent. But I worry that a guest-worker program will lead us to a European-style situation where a sequestered immigrant population grows increasingly alienated over time and begins to see themselves as living within a larger society that is happily willing to exploit their labor but unwilling to afford them a real future. You've seen how well guest-worker programs have worked out over there, where immigrants feel they are shunted into segregated communities with no real respect or any stake in the long term well-being of the larger society. This has lead to a surprising increase in resentment, hostility and violence, and I wouldn't want to see that repeated here.
I think the best solution is to allow for a somewhat easier path to citizenship for more people who are willing to work for it--which the vast, vast majority of immigrants are. This would (hopefully) protect both the dignity of the workers and the economic interests of this country that depends on them. And I do feel that more of a crackdown needs to take place on employers who hire undocumented workers--less demand for exploitable, low-wage workers will lead to less supply. There is no magic bullet that can solve all the problems surrounding illegal immigration, but I think allowing an easier path to citizenship than that which currently exists, both for undocumented workers already in the U.S. and future immigrants, is the best option. Some say this basically means rewarding those who have flaunted the law and come here illegally. I admit, part of me is uncomfortable with the notion of rewarding illegal activity. But at a certain point practicality must be taken into consideration. I don't really have the answer (no one does), but we have allowed the creation of a difficult situation that is going to require complex solutions.
In all honesty, I'm not sure what to make of the immigration issue. There are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, at least as near as anyone can figure, and that's roughly the population of Ohio. The Pew Hispanic Center says undocumented workers compose one out of twenty members of the nation's workforce. If all of these workers were somehow deported tomorrow (not that that's remotely possible, but for the sake of argument) the economy would be in shambles and American life might well come to a screeching halt, at least for a good long while.
Clearly immigration law needs reform. Not only have immigrant workers become an integral part of the fabric of this country, but these men and women come to America because American businesses want them here. Many immigrants are willing to work jobs that most native-born Americans would turn their nose up at, and for very low pay. While I don't care for exploitative element at play here, nor the fact that this arrangement keeps wages low for all workers immigrant or otherwise, I do recognize that neither the political will nor the practical ability exists to ship 11 million people out of this country and turn our borders into an armed fortress (which still wouldn't work anyway). This is a much thornier political issue than many people realize, and frankly I don't know if there's a "good" way to resolve the situation.
However I can say that I'm not in favor of simply stuffing everyone into some sort of an open-ended 'guest worker' program. Clearly this is what businesses want since it would allow them to keep wages low and benefits practically non-existent. But I worry that a guest-worker program will lead us to a European-style situation where a sequestered immigrant population grows increasingly alienated over time and begins to see themselves as living within a larger society that is happily willing to exploit their labor but unwilling to afford them a real future. You've seen how well guest-worker programs have worked out over there, where immigrants feel they are shunted into segregated communities with no real respect or any stake in the long term well-being of the larger society. This has lead to a surprising increase in resentment, hostility and violence, and I wouldn't want to see that repeated here.
I think the best solution is to allow for a somewhat easier path to citizenship for more people who are willing to work for it--which the vast, vast majority of immigrants are. This would (hopefully) protect both the dignity of the workers and the economic interests of this country that depends on them. And I do feel that more of a crackdown needs to take place on employers who hire undocumented workers--less demand for exploitable, low-wage workers will lead to less supply. There is no magic bullet that can solve all the problems surrounding illegal immigration, but I think allowing an easier path to citizenship than that which currently exists, both for undocumented workers already in the U.S. and future immigrants, is the best option. Some say this basically means rewarding those who have flaunted the law and come here illegally. I admit, part of me is uncomfortable with the notion of rewarding illegal activity. But at a certain point practicality must be taken into consideration. I don't really have the answer (no one does), but we have allowed the creation of a difficult situation that is going to require complex solutions.
posted by Yukon Sully | 8:15 PM
8 Comments:
Yes, something has to be done. I need you to clarify. In your second paragraph you state that "the economy would come to a screeching halt..." Is that your opinion, or that of the Pew Hispanic Center? If it's that of the Center, then I have a hard time believing they are exactly without an agenda, and I question it. If it's yours, I question it still. I've read in the past few days that when the slaves were freed, the economy found a way to survive. I'm not sure that's a bad analogy, but I haven't seen too much in depth on it.
As for the enactment of new laws in Congress, it's laughable that we would ever even think of debating whether an inherently illegal activity should be, um, made illegal? Wow. This smacks of everyone feeling like they have to tiptoe around for fear of being labeled a racist. Why? Because our spineless government has allowed it to happen. It seems to me we should enact laws that make sense, like, for instance, making an illegal activity illegal, and work from there to solve the problems that may arise. The consequences need to be dealt with. But instead, we all opt to make life easier on businesses that hire illegal help.
Worrying about the politics involved is what causes most of us to worry if we're doing the right thing here. At some point, politics has to be tossed out in favor of common sense. It probably won't be done now, but at some point, it really has to be.
The "screeching halt" expression was mine--I was talking about the impossible notion of being able to deport all 11 million or so illegal immigrants in the U.S.--it couldn't be done (George F. Will noted on Sunday that the number of buses such a mass deportation would require would literally stretch from San Diego to Alaska) but if it somehow could be done, if we woke up tomorrow and 11 million people were just gone, that would be a blow to American industry that would probably take years to recover from. I don't think the slavery comparison really works--freed slaves weren't deported for the most part, but stayed in this country and kept contributing to it despite continuing degredations. Interestingly, the idea of colonizing parts of Africa with freed slaves was discussed in the mid 19th century (and was actually tried to a limited extent--look into the history of the East African nation of Liberia), but Lincoln famously said that this idea was preposterous, and would be akin to a man colonizing out his right arm, or colonizing out his gun when a burglar is in the house. A similar argument could be made today, I think.
There's nothing inherently unthinkable about making something that was once illegal legal. We do it all the time. And amnesty has been offered to illegal immigrants in the past--Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to millions of formerly-illegal immigrants in 1986. I agree that we have to take a common-sense perspective here, but from my point of view that common-sense perspective has to start with acknowledging this fact: The United States has been schizophrenic on this issue for decades. On the one hand we offically tell would-be immigrants who are eager to come here for work and opportunity to obey the law and comply with a ponderous immigration
system that makes legal immigration all but impossible for the vast majority. On the other hand American employers are eager to hire illegal workers because they willingly accept sub-standard wages and benefits and if they make trouble (like, say, they want a living wage or health care for their children) a quick call to La Migra will take care of things. It's as if we as a nation have got one hand raised in a "Halt!" gesture and the other seductively beconing immigrants to come closer. This duality has created a situation that is ultimately unworkable. The questions we must answer are 1. how do we craft an immigration policy and reality that aren't contradictory but are instead consistant and in the best interests of all concerned, and 2. what do we do with those 11 million who are already here and who are an integral part of our society despite their illegal status? I don't have all the answers and would be happy to hear alternatives, but reform is definitely needed.
I see your point about the 11 million causing problems if they vanished. But, since you recognize they could not be removed immediately, why not follow what the House is doing by passing the law making it a felony to be an illegal alien, as people are rounded up, deport them. That sort of phases in the elimination of them as one step. Next, we have to look at why Americans "refuse" to take the jobs illegals are doing. If it's because employers like the cheap, compliant labor, start going after them. It can start on Galetti Way. The jobs that people get picked up to do there could be done by the nice guy walking around my neighborhood handing out flyers saying he's looking for work. People hiring illegals are just a step above slave owners.
The impact illegals have on the economy now also needs t be taken into account. I won't act like they're all on welfare, which is something I see on some websites. But you have to acknowledge that medical care is affected by them, and what about the guy who gets in a car accident and flees because he's here illegally? Those things affect the economy negatively.
What we have right now are people taking to the streets to protest Congress attempting to make an illegal activity a crime. That defies all logic. It's not about reversing a law. If Congress wanted to do that, I'd say let the voters speak. I'm not dumb enough to think anything would actually happen when the voters spoke, but at least Congress ahould consider themselves accountable to people who actually have a right to be here.
"draconian". That's too funny. I heard that on NPR like 6 times today.
Also, the idea of the "screeching halt" was discussed. (bet you were listening in the AM)
Anyway. I am so non-political on this issue, but I think: It's nice for us legal citizens to have the luck to be born here. It sucks that we "have a right to be here" while those born in Mexico don't. It's nice for us that these guys pay into social security while never taking out. It's nice for our employers to be able to hire cheap labor. But, illegal aliens have a disporportionate likelyhood of commiting felonies while here.
So, I'm conflicted on this one.
If we cannot control our borders, we are no longer a nation.
There is nothing new about a "complaint driven" enforcement policy. Most municipalities or police agencies have policies of non enforcement of many violations UNTIL that person comes on the radar screen for some other violation.
You need not kick down doors is seeking illegals, but when they are pulled over for a traffic infraction and have no insurance, valid driver's license & registration and/or fake ID...THEN they are a perfect candidate for an immediate one way bus ticket.
In Oregon, our police are ordered to not inquire alien status. As a result, no complete record search is done. Our social service agencies and justice system is being crushed by the disproportional problems associated with "undocumented" scofflaws.
JD
Sully:
Care to comment on Supreme Court appeal of convicted murderer & illegal alien? As I understand it, appeal is based on failure to provide access to Mexican Consulate at time of arrest.
Only problem is, many law enforcement jurisdictions prohibit inquiring as to the immigration status of a suspect. In Oregon, it's not only policy but State Statute prohibits such inquiry.
He was not denied legal counsel, only not OFFERED contact with the Mexican Consulate.
Sounds like the kind of catch 22 that citizens get caught in sometimes.
JD
I'm not familiar with that case. If it's as you describe it then it may be an unworkable Catch-22. As I understand it, denial of access to a consulate for a foreign national can, under certain circumstances, be a denial of due process. The appellant may be proceeding under the basic constitutional principle that in order for a right to be knowingly and intelligently waived, the defendant must be aware that the right exists. The only way around it I could think of would be to simply inform every arrestee to whom consular access might be applicable of their potential right without actually asking whether or not they are a foreign national, sort of the way we inform every interogation subject of their right to legal counsel regardless of whether they intend to excercize that right or not. That way the suspect would be informed that the right exists but the state would not technically be inquiring as to the suspect's legal status. It seems somewhat burdensome to the state to require something like this, but then again the state bears pretty much every burden when it comes to crimial law in this country (at least in theory). If you have a cite to that case I'd love to look at it.
Here is one that I heard about, but there are many more with slightly different facts:
"MEDELLIN v. DRETKE, No. 04-5928
Dismissed as improvidently granted on May 23, 2005
On December 10, 2004, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Jose Medellin to determine what effect U.S. courts should give to a recent ruling by the United Nations' highest tribunal, the International Court of Justice at the Hague (ICJ). On May 23, 2005, the Court dismissed its writ of certiorari as improvidently granted primarily because President Bush intervened and ordered state courts to abide by the ICJ ruling. In an unsigned decision, the Court noted that once this matter is reviewed in Texas state courts, the Supreme Court "would in all likelihood have an opportunity to review the Texas courts' treatment of the President's memorandum and [the] Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals...." (footnote 1)."
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=248&scid=38
(scroll down)
Also:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Supreme+Court+access+Denied+Mexican+Consulate&btnG=Search
Post a Comment
<< Home