Immigration has been a
subject of great debate around here (various social circles) lately due to the
Court's consideration of Arizona's law, and I have noticed an interesting fact:
one side is arguing the benefits of legal immigration, while the other side is
arguing the detriments of illegal immigration.
No wonder they can't agree!
Here are the basic arguments
in support of immigration that I have heard (if you know of more, I'd love to
hear them, leave a comment!):
1. Almost all Americans are
descendents of immigrants.
2. They are not criminals,
they are just people looking for a better life.
3. We need the taxes they
pay.
4. We need the workers.
5. To deny them is racism
and/or a violation of their civic and/or human rights.
And here are the explanations
of those against it:
1. Almost all Americans are
descendents of legal immigrants, who assimilated into the existing culture
without demanding or receiving special benefits and privileges. (The beginning
of European settlement is a-whole-nother issue, so we will confine ourselves to
the time frame after the U.S. became a sovereign nation and had immigration
laws.)
2. All immigrants are looking
for a better life; illegal ones do it by breaking the law, and are thus
criminals. If your home is nicer than mine, do I have the right to break in and
start living there to better my life? Of course not. How ridiculous. Well, this
country is just a larger sense of "home."
3. Legal immigrants may pay
taxes, but illegal immigrants do not (other than sales tax). They do, however,
benefit from all the things that taxes provide, such as free education, use of
infrastructure, and free health care. Wait, did I just say taxes provide free
health care? Yes, but only for illegal immigrants. The rest of us have to pay
for our health care, in addition to the taxes that pay for theirs.
4. Of all the arguments for
illegal immigration, I find this the most unsettling. It has a familiar ring,
that harks back to the worst of our history.
Take this quote from Mary
Sanchez, opinion columnist for the Kansas City Star: "[Arizona] certainly
can't do much to address the problem at the heart of the immigration issue: our
country's need for low-wage labor...It can't get them legally, any more than
states like Georgia can, with its reliance on immigrant labor for
agriculture." (Printed in the Kerrville Daily Times, April 23, 2012)
I live in the south, and I
have grown up hearing how the "war of northern aggression" (yes, it
is still called that by some) was all because the "d* yankees" wanted
to end slavery - which the southern farmers needed
to make a living.
Now, I realize that migrant
labor, however low-paid and exploited, is NOT on the same level as slavery. The
immigrant workers have the one, all-important factor of choice. But, did you
catch the meaning of Sanchez's quote? 'We need workers we can exploit in a way
that is not possible with legal citizens.' She would deny that, I'm sure, but
read it again: "our country's need for low-wage labor...it can't get legally."
Why do Arizona and agriculture-reliant states demand such low-wage earners? To
allow higher profits for the corporations. The sister argument to this is that
"Americans won't do these jobs." That is not the whole truth; to
complete the sentence truthfully you must add "at those wages."
Remember that citizens must pay, in addition to their living expenses, taxes
and health care that illegal immigrants do not have to pay, and which can be
very expensive. No wonder it takes a higher wage for a citizen to make a
living.
The real problem is allowing
the exploitation of workers. That is just plain wrong. I am continually amazed
that the folks who are supposed to have the "bleeding hearts" are the
ones supporting this exploitation, as evidenced by statements such as the one
above.
Besides that, the idea that such
low wage workers are "needed" is a fallacy. Consider this: If citizens
were hired and paid decent wages, those citizens would then be able to afford
to pay more for products and services; thus, producers could produce higher
quality goods - in the US, thus providing even more jobs; everyone from growers
to suppliers to merchants would be able to charge more because the citizenry
would be able to afford it with their decently-paid jobs; and then company
profits would also increase. Everyone benefits. It would be cycle of prosperity, instead of the cycle we have now of
insisting upon hiring illegal immigrant workers at poverty level wages so that
neither they nor the citizens who now do not have that job can afford to
purchase anything but the cheapest of the bare necessities, which causes
producers and manufacturers to produce in the cheapest means possible, which
means exploiting more workers both here and in other countries, which continues
the cycle....
So please tell me what I'm
missing here. It must be something, and something significant, because
otherwise surely others would be pointing this out.
5. It is sadly but most definitely
true that racism plays a part in the immigration equation for a great many
people, and racism should be censured and condemned wherever it is found. All
people against illegal immigration are not racist, however. There is an easy
way to tell, and that is to notice whether someone is only against immigrants
from a certain place. If one does not mind Canadians but is always railing
against Mexicans, that one has a problem with race. The same rules should apply
to everyone, no matter where they are from. But the rules should be applied!
They do exist for a reason, after all. It is not necessary to single out
individuals by profiling, but when law enforcement encounters illegal
immigrants, it should be exactly that: law enforcement.
Well, that's quite a
rant.
I love a good debate. Any
takers? (Just keep it decent.)
