1. Whatever happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me..."?Great questions!
2. Other than the fact that we have (a) written-down immigration laws and (b) the military, economic, etc. power to potentially enforce them, what is the difference between the situation now where people are coming here without invitation and the situation 5 centuries ago when our ancestors did the same thing?
I assume you're referring to the quote by Emma Lazarus that's on the Statue of Liberty, right? That still holds. America is the land of freedom and opportunity - if it wasn't, why would people from all over the world be trying to come here? Nothing has changed on that score. Anyone who comes here to become an American and contribute to American society is welcomed with opened arms.
The key truly is how they come here, and there are a number of reasons that I'll try to explain.
Back in 1883 when that quote was written, America was a country full of opportunity, but to my knowledge it wasn't particularly wealthy. So, the opportunity was that of working hard and being rewarded for one's work - the American dream. They wanted to join the melting pot that was America, they wanted to contribute to America's prosperity through their own accomplishments, and they wanted the freedom to live, speak, worship, etc. as they desired.
So, what's the difference now, 125 years later? The attitude. As I explain, please keep in mind that there are exceptions. I will be talking in generalities, and I know full well that there are people who don't fall into my assertions. But, generalities certainly have their place in discussions like this, so I will use them.
America has achieved such phenomenal wealth that we are somewhat unique in the history of the world. Many of America's 'poor' are actually wealthy by the world's standards. Poverty in America equates to having just one dumpy car, a cell phone but no land line, and only a couple of TVs and DVD players. This is ultra-luxury for much of the world that lives in TRUE poverty. [I'm not trying to diminish the plight of poor Americans -- which is real, by the way -- but rather to illustrate the relativity of what we consider 'poor' here.]
Combine this with America's tremendous generosity -- after all, who is it that gives billions of dollars to charities each year, aid to natural disasters around the world, etc. -- and you have quite an obvious equation. Nowadays, many illegal immigrants come here to leech off the prosperity and generosity of Americans. Along with that, there is little -- if any -- desire to join America, contribute to American society, or become Americans.
That's the key right there!
I know it sounds kind of harsh at first, but think about it. Remember just a couple years ago when hundreds of thousands of Hispanics took to the streets around the country? They were waving Mexican flags, refusing to speak English, and demanding their 'rights', which were imaginary because the Constitution doesn't give non-citizens ANY rights. Add to that the frequent mentions of 'taking back' their northern lands and other such blatant anti-American comments, and there is no doubt what they want: access to America's wealth, without any of the responsibility.
This may seem like a trivial point, but it has enormous ramifications. It comes down to respect -- or lack of respect -- for America's laws and institutions. For example, if someone is willing to break the law to get into America, how likely are they going to be to follow the law once they're here? Not nearly as likely as those who come in legally. Look at it this way - if there are 15 million illegal aliens (largely Hispanic, though not all) here, that's 5% of the population. Combined with the 15 million or so legal Hispanics in this country, you have a total of about 10% of the population. It would figure that prisons would have about 10% Hispanics, right? That's not what we find - we see something more like 30% Hispanics in prisons, and we know many of them are 'undocumented'. What's the difference? Those 'undocumented' people don't hold any respect for American law, taking what they want by force.
And why would a group of people who comprise just 10% of a country's population demand -- not ask, demand -- that the other 90% accommodate -- not simply tolerate, mind you, but active participation and accommodation -- their language and traditions, when learning English is so plain to success of business and productivity in America? After all, don't you have to be able to communicate with the people around you to assimilate? I believe it is because they have no real desire to assimilate at all. What other explanation is there? The immigrants of 5 centuries ago were happy to work hard all day long, then come home at night and learn English so they could integrate into American society because they respected American traditions and institutions and wanted not only to integrate, but to contribute in their own way. Now, with so many modern conveniences and ways to obtain help in learning, why is it so difficult for today's illegals to do this one task? It is certainly possible, if the will is there. I don't see the will.
I have blogged about all of these things over the past months on my blog - if you want to check my facts, go ahead. They're there, as are more details.
Now, some of the most common objections:
1. You're just a racist!
My Answer: No, I'm not, unless you consider putting Americans first as being racist. If you look at it that way, I'm guilty as charged. I believe that America should protect its own citizens first (economically, criminally, etc.). This has nothing to do with racism, but rather prioritizing.
2. They're a net benefit to the country.
My Answer: No, they're not. This has been proven over and over - look back through my archives if you want the details. Services granted to illegal aliens amount to billions of dollars in net drain on our economy. Health care alone is a problem, as many hospitals have closed because of the high illegal population utilizing its services. And, did you know that Mexico's second largest industry is money being sent back from America? What would happen if we channeled that money back into our own economy? How much better could we do for our own citizens if that money stayed here at home?
3. They do jobs that Americans won't do.
My Answer: Again, that's untrue. A quick example: if illegals make up 25% of the citrus fruit-picking farming industry, who makes up the other 75%? Americans.
4. They're just trying to make life better for themselves and their families.
My Answer: True, but the way they're doing it is similar to me breaking into your house and stealing your stuff to make life better for me and my family. Granting amnesty for entering the country illegally would be like me getting to keep the stuff I stole from you after I got caught.
5. You can't separate families.
My Answer: Actually, you can. It happens every day when American criminals get thrown in jail. Stupid parenting damages children every day, but we should not change the rules simply because the parent is here illegally. Now, that separation is obviously not the best situation, but what's wrong with having the children -- even if they're U.S. citizens -- go live with their parents in their home country? That keeps the family together, doesn't it? Or, the children could live with a (legal) friend or other family member who actually has a right to be here.
6. It's traumatic to deport illegals who have lived here for years, ripping them out of their roots.
My Answer: It's pretty damned traumatic to the victims and families of victims of violent crime perpetrated by illegal aliens. Why do they always get lost in this issue?
The list goes on and on.
Another two points that I find very pertinent is that we are now seeing diseases that have been largely eradicated (i.e. tuberculosis) make a booming comeback. This is because 3rd world illegal immigrants bring these diseases into our country in large numbers. And, don't forget the national security aspect. You'd have to either be a total moron or a willing dupe to not understand how our porous borders present a golden opportunity for terrorists. I've also blogged about this repeatedly - we've already seen terrorists enter the country and launch attacks, not only at the World Trade Center, but other targets as well. This isn't speculation, it's fact.
Aside from terrorism, my point remains: the critical factor here is the attitude, the reason people come to America. Do they want to join America, contribute, and be productive? Or do they want to sneak in, break whatever laws they choose, refuse to assimilate, contribute, or claim any sense of responsibility or respect for America's institutions and traditions?
This is the difference, Anonymous. It's a critical one.
Yes, bring us your tired, your poor, your homeless, and so on...but bring them here the right way, with respect for America, respect for American traditions and laws, and respect for Americans. Without that, it's nothing but trouble.
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
In response to your addressing of "common objections":
1. "You're just a racist."
I 99.9% agree with your answer...I don't think you're a racist; I don't think government taking care of it's citizens is racist, etc. That not what I think (and I think the "racism" charges are usually unproductive to discussion). The 00.1% I disagree with stems from the "Americans first" mentality. I think it's dangerous to start valuing people differently based solely on whether they are American, Mexican, etc. and I think we need to be very careful about that. (SIDE NOTE: Along these lines, I don't think the Constitution gives rights to anyone...I think the Constitution is a reflection of rights that ALL humans have, regardless of whether or not their government agrees. For instance, if tomorrow our country amended the Constitution to reallow slavery, does that mean that American people no longer have a right not be slaves. NO. A person's right not to be a slave derives from their dignity as a human...NOT because some piece of paper says so. We hope that our pieces of paper reflect that dignity, but they do not provide it. A further point from the the Declaration of Independence..."all men are CREATED equal and endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with inalienable rights." People have rights because God created them and instilled dignity, not because the Constitution says so, or because they are American.) I think it's dangerous ground to tread to start assigning different rights based on political or geographical categories.
2. "They're a net benefit."
I don't know the data on this, but can easily see that they are not a net economic benefit to our country. Still, a couple points. First, there are other benefits besides economic that should be considered. Second, even if they're not, America is still doing alright and is probably wealthy enough to share. I think we should always, always be careful about hoarding any blessings we have, whether they be personal (my money, my house, etc.) or national (America's wealth, America's generosity, etc.). Plus, there is a danger in reducing people's right to be here to their productivity or contribution to society. Lots of people (American or not) are probably "net detrimental" economically to America...addicts, the elderly, the sick, the young. I'm not saying you shouldn't contribute, I just think that alone is is not a good reason to write people off.
3. "They do jobs Americans won't do."
I don't really disagree with your answer, other than to say that I think the sentiment is more that illegal immigrants are not coming here and becoming doctors, CEOs, or well-salaried employees with lots of benefits...they are usually doing the lowest end of the jobs.
4. "They're just trying to make things better for their family."
I'm glad you acknowledge this, but I disagree with your analogy. It's not quite like breaking into a house...it's more like if you let it be known that if they came into your house, there would be work for them to do that they would get paid for, then letting them stay for a number of years, and then suddenly saying "you're outta here." It's just a little unfair to create a market for work (i.e. companies that you said need to be cracked down on), not doing anything really to get them out, and then all the sudden boot them out with no warning, even if they've been here for 10 years. Even if the laws should be enforced, there should be some middle ground for those that have been "wink, wink"ed by our government into believing that they can be here (by allowing companies to hire them, not enforcing laws, etc.) They shouldn't just be booted.
5. "Can't separate families."
Same sentiment as above. Although the idea of deporting the children who were born here seems to be a little contradictory with the "Americans have rights" line of thinking. They are American citizens, aren't they?
6. "It's traumatic."
The "what about victims of illegal immigrants' crime" part of your answer is a little misleading and not persuasive. It's not like every illegal is coming and committing violent crimes against American families. Lots live relatively peaceful, obscure lives. The behaviors of a few shouldn't necessarily be attached to all of them. Deport the ones doing the crimes...fine...but the limited number that commit crimes shouldn't be imputed to every illegal that crosses the border. Or by that logic, the GOP might be in trouble (Mark Foley preys on teenage boys, so therefore every GOP Congressman should be held accountable for that...it's not very persuasive). Also, a response of "they are all committing crimes by being here" won't work either...your initial post referred to direct victims of additional crimes that happen to be committed by illegals. Also, if someone is truly "traumatized" by the mere fact that some people are here illegally (in the same way an assault victim is traumatized by the assault), then that person needs to get over it.
A few other thoughts in response:
Diseases:
Yes, new diseases can be dangerous to a native population when introduced by uninvited foreigners, just ask the Native Americans.
Terrorism:
Again, the fact that some uninvited foreigners might do violence against a nation can be dangerous to that nation, just ask the Native Americans.
Attitude:
I'm not sure your characterization of the attitude of our ancestors is accurate. I don't think they were going "Wow, I can't wait to be an American...I can't wait to contribute to America." I think they were trying to leave a bad situation in Europe for the possibility of something better in the new world. Sure, they wanted to work hard, but I don't think they were super-excited about (or even did) abandoning their culture for the new "American" culture...that probably didn't happen until much later in our history. Much the same way, I think a lot of of illegals just want to leave a bad situation in their homelands in the hope of something better here, they want to work hard, and aren't super-excited about adandoning their culture.
I still don't think there's been a good answer to either question. The "give me your poor" quote/ideal does not have a tack-on clause "so long as they will assimilate and aren't a drag on our economy." And, there isn't much difference between our ancestors and the illegal immigrants of today. They aren't invited, our ancestors weren't invited. They are generally wanting to leave a bad situation for something better, our ancestors wanted to leave bad situations for something better. They have a few bad apples (criminals, dealers, terrorists), our ancestors included a few bad apples (criminals, etc). They bring some bad stuff with them, our ancestors brought some bad stuff with them. Some of the bad stuff illegals might bring today (terrorism, crime, disease) might really hurt our nation, some the bad stuff our ancestors brought (small pox blankets, disease, military conquest) did really hurt the "nations" that were here first. The ONLY difference is that we have laws written down saying who can/can't come to America (whereas Native Americans had no such laws), AND we have the military strength to to enforce those laws (whereas the Native Americans didn't have the strength to keep us out).
Now, am I saying we base our policy on what our ancestors did...NO. I am saying that none of us should forgot how we came to be here and should season our policies/discussions/etc. with a little humility and compassion.
After giving some thought to your comments, I'm not sure there's much point to responding again. It appears that we have irreconcilable differences of opinion on a couple key issues, and it doesn't appear that either of us is willing to budge. But, I'll go ahead and give it one more shot, just for fun. :)
1. Every person is of equal value. It's not a question of value, but rather of the allocation of the finite resources this country has at its disposal. As such, priorities have to be established, and I believe the higher priority should be placed on law-abiding Americans rather than law-breaking foreigners (be they Mexican or not). Would you spend more money on health care for a stranger, or your own child? Of course, you'd spend more on your own child! Why? Are you anti-stranger? No, you're just prioritizing the allocation of your finite resources. Same concept applies to the bigger scope.
I agree that the Constitution is a reflection of the rights given to everyone by the Creator. However, nations are governed by laws (unless you live in a true theocracy, which we do not), which must treat all people the same (at least, they do here in America). Along with those laws and legal protections, there are privileges and responsibilities that go along with citizenship of any nation which may or may not apply to non-citizens. Let's turn it around. If you turned 65 and moved to a European country that funded its citizens' retirement, would you expect to have your retirement funded by that country? Of course not. You haven't put your life's work into that country's productivity, you're not a citizen of that country, and you don't have the same rights as the citizens of that country. This is the difference I'm talking about. Every person has the same value because they're made in the image of God. But, in regard to legal protections and privileges, different countries do different things. A citizen of one country isn't required to have the same protections and privileges of a citizen of any other country. You're talking about a global citizenship then, and that's a whole different ballgame.
2. Good point. By itself, you're probably right. Taken with all the other factors, I believe it is yet another compelling argument. Again, I look at this as prioritization. Also, I would caution against saying that just because America is a wealthy country we should be compelled to share. That is a flagrant violation of the freedoms we enjoy in this country! As an American, I have a right to donate my resources to churches or charities as I choose, just as I also have a right not to donate. You may question my generosity, character, or whatever if I choose not to give, but to force me to give (even via my tax dollars) is not your right to exercise.
3. Again, true. Regardless of sentiment, though, we need to examine the facts of what's happening. I rest on my previous arguments.
4. This is a very sticky point. I see your logic about inviting them in and suddenly booting them out, but that's not what has happened. When has it ever been acceptable to have millions of low-educated, low-skilled people with little desire to assimilate into America? American citizens have not invited them in, as your analogy suggests, and as such it should be no surprise that Americans want them out. Instead, Congress and the White House has ignored the issue of border security for decades despite the fact that the American people wanted it addressed. Let me put a different spin on my previous analogy of breaking into your house and stealing your stuff, and see if that helps.
Let's say that you rented your house from a landlord, and your landlord allowed me to come in and take your stuff, just as long as I cleaned something while I was there. The first week, you come home and find your floors and counters clean, but your TV is gone. You complain to your landlord, asking for a security system to be put in, and your landlord says he'll take care of it, but it never happens. The next week, I come into your house again, and this time I wash the dishes in the sink, but walk out with your jewelry. As I'm heading out the door, you arrive home and see me leaving. You stop me and tell me to give back your jewels, but I simply tell you that your landlord let me in, and therefore you shouldn't get mad at me for doing what my landlord allowed me to do.
How does that change things? Congress is the irresponsible landlord, who is allowing the problem to get worse and worse. But, just because the problem is caused by Congress, does that make it any less of a crime against the American citizen? No.
I would not be opposed to some flexibility (as Romney proposed), perhaps giving illegals a grace period of 6-12 months to tie up their affairs and leave voluntarily. But, that grace period cannot last forever, and the enforcement has to come at some point. I'm not without compassion, but my compassion has limits. I think most people would agree with me.
5. I think we actually agree on this. As I said, the child (citizen) can stay with a legal friend or family member. That's fine, and you're correct that it is their right. What's not fine is to allow the illegal parent to stay with the legal child. If it's so critical that they stay together, they should be together in the illegal parent's home country, where both the parent and child are legal. I'm just saying you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
6. I'm not entirely sure I follow you on this one, but I'll take my best guess at interpretation. You're correct about over-generalization - that would be ridiculous and counterproductive on all accounts (I also agree with you that if someone is 'traumatized' by the mere presence of illegals, they need to get over it - I think that's being ridiculous). But, I don't believe I over-generalized. The numbers speak for themselves about the overly high number of violent criminals among illegal aliens. But, let's say we're just talking about those who are not violent criminals. They still committed a crime by coming here, and by overlooking that crime, you're essentially saying that some crimes should not be enforced. My question for you, then, is where does that stop? How do we know which laws should be enforced and which ones shouldn't? Who gets to decide that? This is another one of those very slippery slopes that is best avoided altogether by enforcing the immigration laws currently on the books.
Other points:
- Disease --- That's a cheap shot. Do you think that the explorers from around the world didn't get anything from the indigenous peoples? Are you suggesting it was only a one-way street? The intent of my original point was to explain that we are facing a re-introduction of diseases that have been removed from America, and it's happening precisely because of illegal immigration. Like the financial burden, it's not enough on its own, but it is yet another compelling argument.
- Terrorism --- You've got to be kidding me! If you're equating the colonization of America with today's Islamic terrorism, I must respectfully suggest that you lack fundamental understanding of terrorism.
Look, I won't begin to argue that what was done to Native Americans was right. As with individuals, a nation must struggle to find its identity over time and decide what it considers right and wrong. I think we have, over time, found most of the right answers, but we have learned the hard way on any number of matters. Take slavery, for instance - to my knowledge (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), America is the only world power to actually turn its back on slavery inside its own borders, once its people awoke to its inherent barbarism. I suppose the best I can say here is that it's better late than never. By the same token, one cannot deny that the growth and character development of America has not ultimately brought great freedom, liberty, and opportunity to millions around the world, especially in the recent past.
But, radical Islamic terrorists are a completely different matter. To suggest that what terrorists do is on a par with what the original colonists did to the Native Americans is simply naive. As you so eloquently pointed out, the original colonists came to America to live free, work hard, and earn a better life. Terrorists have precisely the opposite goals. They are not interested in religious freedom (or any kind of freedom at all), or prosperity, or the advancement of ideas. They are interested in religious oppression, violence and death, and total control, especially of women and minorities.
I would hope those differences are apparent.
Your last paragraphs lead me to believe we won't ever be in complete agreement on this. You share that you haven't heard any answers to your original questions, and I feel that I've provided many. You still maintain that just because there were some similarities with the beginnings of America, we should ignore all the bad things that rampant illegal immigration is causing now. I disagree, and believe we need to take action to stop those bad things. While I acknowledge there may have been some similarities, America in 2008 is a vastly different time and situation than America in 1608, and we cannot possibly treat the two the same.
You imply that one of the main differences is that now America has a military with the strength to keep illegals out, whereas the Native American population did not have the strength to keep out European 'invaders'. While I wouldn't put it quite that way, there is some truth to that. A very wise man once said that ours is a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force. I believe that is true to a large extent. Native Americans could not repel the Europeans, and they lost control of their country. To draw the parallel, America needs to exert the strength to repel the illegal immigration 'invasion' before it is too late, or we will lose control of our country.
If Mexico were to invade America and win, we would have no choice but to submit to their rules. Since that has not happened, I don't believe we should submit to Mexico's demands. In general, I find it much more appropriate that the visitors in any country should adhere to the rules of that country. For example, if I were to go live in Mexico, I would invariably have to live by the laws governing Mexico. That makes sense, right? Then why are illegal Mexicans living in the United States exempt from the same concept?
In the interest of fairness, why don't we adopt the same immigration policy that Mexico has? That should be fair, right? Check out my previous blog on that, but here are the highlights:
1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.
2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.
3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.
4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.
5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.
7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no "bad-mouthing" our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.
8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.
I could live with those policies being implemented in America...how about you? What do you think the chances are of this proposal being accepted by the very same people who think we should be more tolerant of illegal immigration here? Zero, zip, zilch. My question for you: why is it acceptable for Mexico, but unacceptable for America?
Your suggestion that we should address these issues with humility and compassion is one I share, but we appear to have different limitations on that humility and compassion, and it seems that's where our paths diverge permanently.
Thanks for your comments - I can tell you've put some time and thought into them, and I appreciate you engaging me on the issue!
Post a Comment