Monday, October 5, 2009

Illegal Immigration: Fact vs. Fiction -Civis

In Mexico, all immigrants must speak Spanish (no government business will be conducted in English!); all immigrants must be investors or professionals; there are no bilingual programs in the schools; no immigrant may protest, hold substantial amounts of property (and no coastal property); and if they do decide to invest, it must be 40,000 times the daily minimum wage. 

We should obviously adopt all of those convenient laws. If Mexico is doing this, then so should we ... right?

I feel a proper rebuttal to that idea can be three words: America isn't Mexico. Mexican restrictions on labor don't seem to have satisfied their economic concerns so much as they've satisfied Mexican contempt for Guatemala. And the idea of using one language for all government business in America is not respectful to history nor culturally inclusive. Furthermore, the implication of some conservatives that English is America's native language is downright humorous. I'm pretty sure a multitude of languages were spoken here before English. You know, the languages of those other societies we just sort of brushed aside. The conservative fear of Spanish becoming the dominant language in America is simply ungrounded.

What makes immigration, especially of the illegal variety, such a volatile topic is its racial, economic, and (therefore) political implications. But beyond any of these three reasons is the ultimate fear, one that conservatives (and their political ancestors) have perpetuated for longer than America’s existence as a nation: fear of losing one’s cultural identity. The most prominent early organized group of this belief system were the Know-Nothings, belonging to the so-called “American Party.” Their problem with immigration was the influx of German and Irish Catholics. I happen to have exactly that--extensive German and Irish (and Catholic) ancestry on both sides of my family. Back then, in the 1850’s, religious divisions between Catholics and Protestants were about as deep as race was in the 1960’s. If the Know-Nothings were correct then I should belong to a very separate, isolated section of society. But somehow I am an equal citizen. The Know-Nothings were wrong about immigration; as are their their descendants; as so will be the future of this radical group. 

All of the Irish immigrants in this period were poor, uneducated, and unskilled (beyond being farmers of potatoes). Consequently, they were perceived as riffraff, stupid, and lazy. They came seeking a new life, with vigor and hope, and often met rude ethnocentrism. The only two differences between these Irish immigrants and those presently from Central America are race, and sometimes, the legality of the immigration.  Let me be clear: I am vehemently opposed to illegal immigration. It violates and undermines codified law, which does not seem to be in line with seeking a new, prosperous American life. In my opinion, it seems to act in favor of economic benefit versus forming a new personal national identity. This is why permanent residence must be a secure option if we are actually seeking a unified America, to any degree. Immigrants will ultimately come as long as the economic difference between the U.S. and Mexico exists; and that difference is definitely here to stay. If one fears the division of America based on ethnic, cultural, or social lines, then the worst possible thing to do is to exclude. Historically while immigration may have fluctuated, assimilation always continued to increase. Irish Catholic and German Catholic immigrants were eventually accepted into society, they moved into better neighborhoods, and went to better schools. And therein lies the solution.

First, the channels of legal immigration need to be expanded, substantially. Waiting 14 years, taking an exam most Americans can’t even pass, taking an oath, and finishing numerous other requirements seem ridiculous to protect something as arbitrary as birth. Make the path to naturalization only 6 years, simplify the exam to actual standards that Americans can pass, do a reasonable background check, and finish it up with an oath. Remember, it is only hardworking, motivated individuals applying for naturalization, not the criminals running drug operations. 

The second step may sound the most simple but is the most difficult: reduce violence at the border. This is a dangerous process because often an increase in police activity aggravates more criminal resistance. This will have to be legislated wisely. 

The final step is one that cannot be legislated, because it works with the very momentum of history. Americans must forge a future where all are included. This means an accepting tone at the workplace, tolerance in our schools, and inclusion at the voting booth. 

Let me finish up with this: the misperception that immigrants hurt America is wrong because it does not take into account that as we include them into American society, they eventually become more well-off. History will take its course; those in the future will look back and see our America as scarcely different than their America. Hopefully, the past they see will be one in which Americans worked together to form their own vision, where tolerance and inclusion will take precedence over the exclusion and cultural division those on the right advocate. 

1 comment:

  1. I completely agree with the need to increase legal immigration into the United States. America should streamline the process, a term thrown around a lot lately. But when I say streamline, I mean truly create an easy system for immigrants. Easy as walk in, get a card with fingerprint, I.D., face and cerdentials and you become a citizen.

    Not only that, America should make it very difficult for people to become non-citizens. Make it physical paperwork, dreary process, possibly at the DMV.

    My reasoning for this approach is simple: Population decline is upon us. The UN has collected reports on population for a good deal of time now, and it is almost a certain pattern that birth rates in industrialized societies fall below the important 2.1 mark. In order for a country to maintain it's population with 0 gain or loss, it's birthrate must be 2.1. If countries are falling below that rate, labor will be a prized asset in the world economy.

    Think about it, we would be preparing for an inevitable course of events. With a strong worker base, and other countries' population falling, we can maintain our status as not only a world superpower, but THE world superpower.

    Let me ask you, is it better to help ourselves a little now and stop immigration, or benefit ourselves immensely in the future by letting them in?

    ReplyDelete