"Realism, Sanity and Lawfulness?" We Could Hope
Any article that begins with the hope to "restore realism, sanity and lawfulness to [the country's] immigration system," is sure to get my attention. A Christmas day editorial in The New York Times talks about merging immigration and labor in "Getting Immigration Right."
Although the piece mentions cabinet nominees Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security) and Bill Richardson (Commerce), labor secretary nominee Hilda Solis takes center stage. The NYT author points out that Obama and Solis both grasp that "If you uphold workers’ rights, even for those here illegally, you uphold them for all working Americans. If you ignore and undercut the rights of illegal immigrants, you encourage the exploitation that erodes working conditions and job security everywhere." At first pass that sounds good. But to what extent are we willing to support the rights of undocumented immigrants?
Illegal or not, we have a responsibility to support their basic human rights. If a raid discovers unsafe working conditions then the undocumented workers should be removed from the place immediately to ensure their safety. If undocumented workers' health is negatively affected by dangerous work performed in our country then we have a moral obligation to treat those people and punish the employer.
If we're talking about basic human rights, I'm on board. Where I start having difficulty is with statements in the editorial such as, "Illegal immigrant workers are deterred from forming unions." Well, of course. As well they should be. People who are not legal residents of this country should not be allowed to form a union and decide how American citizens should run their businesses. Some would argue that denying undocumented immigrants the opportunity to form unions just encourages slave labor and dismal wages, and unions would help undocumented persons from being subjected to those kinds of conditions. My response stays the same: undocumented workers are not entitled to the privilege of deciding how American businesses are run. Legally they should not even be working. Offer a path to legalization for those who want the opportunity to work and use enforcement to take down the shady businesses that refuse to play by the rules.
In the editorial, we are told that we must change the previous administration's focus on raids, detentions and "foolish, inadequate enforcement schemes" like the border fence. Enforcement doesn't solve the problem, "But it also was a strategic failure because it did little or nothing to stem the illegal tide." Really? From what I've read, illegal immigration is dropping, albeit slowly. A report from the Pew Hispanic Center tells us that "inflows of unauthorized immigrants averaged 800,000 a year from 2000 to 2004, but fell to 500,000 a year from 2005 to 2008 with a decreasing year-to-year trend. By contrast, the inflow of legal permanent residents has been relatively steady this decade." Pew says that the turnaround happened in 2007, a fact supported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE's annual report called fiscal year 2007 "a break-out year for the agency as ICE set new enforcement records... ICE can point to an unparalleled record of success in the last fiscal year." Whether the decline in illegal border crossings is due to beefed-up enforcement and security or is a reflection of the downturn in the economy we don't really know, but at some point you have to concede that enforcement is playing a role in its decline.
"It’s a system," the NYT editorial reads, "that the grubbiest and shabbiest industries and business owners — think of the hellish slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, running with immigrant child labor — could not have designed better." Ok, sure. To avoid being shut down, undocumented, under-the-table work is forced underground often resulting in horrible working conditions. But are we supposed to stop enforcement altogether? Provide a path to legalization and hope that the grubby, shabby industries and business owners suddenly play nice? It's not going to happen.
I believe that we have an obligation to treat all people, regardless of their immigration status, humanely and with dignity but we are not obligated to provide undocumented workers with all the same rights as American citizens. This is where the NYT editorial suggests that Solis will make a stand.
The daughter of immigrants living in Los Angeles, Solis has been according the the NYT editorial a "defender of [hiring sites for day laborers] and has opposed efforts in other cities to enact ordinances to disperse day laborers and force them underground." Solis supports the workers' own initiative to set an informal minimum wage and look out for each other. She does not appear to be advocating equal rights for undocumented workers, but rather trying to make the best out of a difficult situation. With obvious demand from the communities for the laborers' services and without an alternative such as a path to legalization (something that Solis has supported in interviews and on her website), Solis' position seems reasonable. It also conflicts with a statement that appears earlier in the editorial, "Without a path to legalization and under the threat of a relentless enforcement-only regime, [illegal immigrant workers] cannot assert their rights." Apparently they can.
Food for thought as we enter a new year and a new administration.
Comments
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates allmost all illegal aliens are Hispanic, mostly Mexican.
Why should lawbreaking Hispanic illegal aliens be given preferential treatment over law abiding legal immigrants?
Legal immigrants have to pass extensive background checks, medical, tests, and quarantee they won’t access our social benefit system for 5 years, then they must wait their turn.
Why should illlegal aliens get a quick pro foma background check, avoid health checks, the tests, and be allowed to immediately access our social welfare benefit? What are they going to do, pay a piddling $5,000 fine that is an insult to the value of American citizenship?
Why should illegal aliens get immunity for their crimes :document fraud = felony; tax evasion = felony; identity theft = felony, 1st illegal entry = misdemeanor, 2nd entry = felony, driving without a license = felony?
Legal immigrants would be barred from ever coming to the USA having committed those crimes, and Americans would spend a long time in jail.
Why should Hispanic Americans have a greater right to family reunification in terms of numbers allowed, timing of entry and conditions of entry, over Americans of all other races and ethnic groups?
We are a nation of law.
No one in America should be above the law, not even illegal aliens.
The DNC is waging a propaganda campaign to try and convince Americans to ignore the rule of law and give racist preferential treatment to illegal aliens.
But Americans will not be deceived. We know right from wrong and see through the political “elite”;s championing of illegal immigration to benefit the rich.
I can’t say the ILLEGAL ALIENS are completely to blame for the shape of our economy, but they are a BIG part of the problem. The ILLEGAL ALIENS send BILLIONS upon BILLIONS out of this Country every year, money we will NEVER see again. Does this help our economy? How about the BILLIONS the American taxpayers fork out for the ANCHOR BABIES, the schooling of them, the medical care and the list goes on, and on, and on. How about the MILLIONS upon MILLIONS paid to jail ILLEGAL ALIENS for the crimes, then the cost to deport them. Does this help our economy?
I believe it is time for all 50 States to pass a State law, like Arizona, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina and a few others. It is time for these ILLEGAL ALIENS to go back to their home Country and get out of this Country. The problems they are causing will not go away until the ILLEGAL ALIENS are out of this Country. I think that is plain to see.
NO ILLEGAL ALIEN HAS A RIGHT TO BE HERE FOR ANY REASON!
One main issue with illegal immigration is the notion that because an illegal immigrant is in the USA (on USA soil), they have a right or entitlement to taxpayer financed benefits. Benefits like means-tested income, state housing (which in Oregon a $200-million comples was contructed for “low income migrant workers & their families”), and education.
Making these taxpayer-financed benefits available to illegal immigrants is dead wrong.
During 2006 and again during 2007, I suggested to federal politicians we say “legal immigrants” are entitled to taxpayer financed benefits. The federal politicans (republican & democrat) say they cannot differentiate between legal & illegal immigrants in written law.
Then the next option then (in my opinion) is to say “citizens of the United states and their minor-age children” are entitled to taxpayer financed benefits – excluding all immigrants.
Either our federal politcans devise a way before March 31st 2009 to differentiate between legal immigrants & illegal immigrants for receiving taxpayer benefits (that can withstand legal challenges) OR taxpayer benefits be restricted to US Citizens only.
150+ countries (including Mexico and most European countries) provide benefits for their citizens only; foreign nationals in their country (legally or illegally) will not be elligible for government assistance programs. I believe it is time for the United States to follow suit.
Posted in my opinion
——————–
So the author wants to proclaim her humaneness and commitment to human dignity. Yet struggles not to emphasize how undocumented immigrants should never be treated equal to American citizens. And also apparently ignored the detention deaths mentioned by the NY times article, while crediting the ongoing enforcement only strategy. Here we see how little value others families have to some, when push comes to shove.
It’s tricky though. In theory certain rights are to be reserved for legal residents. That’s hardly an irrational notion. But when you have a partly, if not largely, self-inflicted situation of unlawful immigration one should compromise. The NY times article was full of mentioning about blatant worker exploitation, including child labor. Is it better to deny unionizing for the sake of asserting that illegal immigrants must be deprived of something, than preventing such abuse.
also, not to unfairly portray the author as being among the callous far right. She supports a legal path for undocumented immigrants, thus saying, they do deserve the same rights as citizens, ultimately, as human beings, just not while, being undocumented should they have the all the same legal rights.