THOUGHTS ON IMMIGRATION

Immigration is once again at the forefront of the public consciousness and there has been no shortage of opinions. The following is an overview of my feelings on this subject.

Almost every American is a lineal descendant of an immigrant. As a people we have and ought to take pride in this tradition. However, previous immigrant waves have been specified by law with clear parameters to gain admission. My grandfather on my mother's side was literally "right off the boat" from Ireland. The conditions for immigration required him to have a sponsor and a job.

Let's be clear that most of those who enter the nation illegally do so with their family's best interests at heart. By any estimate they are hard working and industrious. Both of these virtues, however as a matter of history is true of every immigrant class. The fundamental distinction is legal status and entry. Additionally, the United States is a sovereign nation which is obligated to protect the interests of the nation and its citizens. Regulating the flow of immigration is a necessity in meeting one its most fundamental obligations. We are a nation of laws, not an employment agency for the rest of the world.


There is, in many quarters an interest in a new "comprehensive" immigration law. The key components of this is a "guest worker" program. Proponents of this also insist that the present system is broken and comprehensive reform is necessary. Who do they think they're kidding? In 1985, Congress passed and President Reagan signed "comprehensive" immigration legislation. Included in this was amnesty for approximately 2 million "illegals" in return for tighter border security. How did that work out?

Twenty five years later we are led to believe that with six times as many illegal entrants into the country that the system is broken. Really? If it's broken, could this possibly be due to the failure to secure the border by the feds? Why would a new set of laws or conditions be any more effective than the former "comprehensive" reforms. Why would the feds be any more motivated to secure the border with a new set of laws if they so willingly looked the other way on existing statutes?



Depending on which numbers you believe there are anywhere from 12-18 million "illegal" immigrants in this nation. It is correct, of course that most are from south of the border, "Latin America". The key word is "illegal". Many people are offended by its use as a prefix to immigrants from Mexico. Get over it. No one, regardless of this nations' history has a right to immigrate. No one. No Where. Immigration is not a right. 

"Racist" is a charge often maliciously leveled at those who require border security before any effort at broader reform and as such has further alienated parties that are not as far apart as we all may believe. Most who favor border security favor broader reform, but condition support on certifying a secure border and controlling the ebb and flow of entering the nation. There are millions more from every corner of the globe who have obeyed the law in seeking to immigrate to the United States. Are we being fair to those who follow the law? 


Why, however would we alter existing laws to meet the demands of those who have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect the law? The personal nobility in pursuit of a better life for oneself and their family is a characteristic worthy of American citizenship and human empathy. How valuable a reward is citizenship if we establish no standard? How valid is citizenship, if we allow non citizens and other nations dictate the legal standard? 

Every generation of Americans has been confronted with the cultural logistics of immigration in an ever evolving national identity and today is no different. Ultimately, we all must be governed by a respect for law. Many do not accept this, believing that it is unjust and inhumane and injustice must be confronted. After all wasn't slavery,separate but equal, Jim Crow, etc.  the law? That's true, but those chapters in American history dealt with historic, endemic injustice
that subjected Americans to humiliating second class citizenship by systemically depriving them of their Constitutionally enumerated natural rights. 

Immigration, not being a right does not qualify as historically comparable in any legal or moral context. What about morality? Is depriving entry immoral? Since immigration does not fulfill a spiritual or religious need morality is not an issue.


Ultimately, this issue is being driven by raw politics. It is the politics that has driven a wedge. The Chamber of Commerce's influence on the Republican Party is on display because the members want the cheap labor. As long as the cheap labor can't vote. The influence of Big Labor on the Democratic Party is on display because its  members assume the votes are there, but ultimately don't want them taking jobs away from union members. If you're looking for resolution, well I wouldn't hold my breath.