Guest Column
Illegal Immigrants?
- By Felipe P. Manteiga
Immigrant.
Casting migration in simple polarized terms like
"legal" and "illegal," discusses the form, but not the substance, of a
political decision that will shape America in the 21st. Century.
Society, guided by institutions reflecting its power structure and
political processes determines what is “legal" or "illegal" through
its institutions Once upon a time, citizens could own disenfranchised
slaves and treat them as commodities, not human beings. A group in the
US imposed its view on slavery on another large segment of our
population--and slavery became illegal. And disappeared. Today, some
would like to keep marijuana illegal even when a large group of senior
citizens and many in the medical profession would like chemotherapy
patients to benefit from its effects. The American voter, reflecting
the will of society, has decided to keep criminalized or "illegal" its
use. In the 2004 elections, Ohio voters supported the Wall Mart model
vs the American Blue Collar worker model. The citizens want to keep
legal measures enacted to protect those foreign goods and
services regardless of job loss or depressed middle class income.
Legal or illegal reflects a societal decision. Immigrants are
"illegal" because we, as a nation, want to label them as such. As I
travel through the US, community leaders present diverse views on
migration. These grass root leaders worry that the proposed bill will
create havoc in our farm economy, our hospitality industry, and our
construction sector. Some argue that specific industries, primarily
those requiring low skilled workers(e.g. nursing homes, hospitals)
will be more affected than others (e.g., Silicon Valle has found legal
mechanism to bring skilled migrants).
As a matter of fact, the effectiveness of any migration legislation
should be monitored and evaluated by the number of farms collapsing,
lost agricultural and agribusiness export markets, nursing homes
closing (or number of seniors dying faster), and the closing down of
small and medium hotels, restaurants and cleaning firms or increased
costs and prices in better capitalized ones (e.g., stressed bottom
lines pay less taxes and reduce retained earning, the engine of
economic growth). On the upswing, the tracking of legislative
effectiveness should identify changes in salaries, State tax revenues,
and costs of providing State and county services.
Another concern creeps in from an unexpected angle. The baby boomers
quickly approach their own retirement age. Without a new wave of
small investors and consumers, who will buy stocks as we liquidate
them to supplement our annuities? or real state as "empty nesters"
downsize, or our farms as seasoned farmers fade away and their
children prefer the city lights?
Of course, the issue of national values, an ideological one, shapes
the debate and its outcome. After all, values determined the legality
of slavery, legitimatized the political incorrectness of suffragettes,
approved hated new family modalities (e.g., divorce) and the end of
the imposition of a "good" on the population, the "dry" period.
Family, religion, education and media, and civil society nurture those
values. As a Christian I have always admired a great tradition in
our nation, a great innovation by the Founding Fathers: the separation
of Church and State (my experience in countries that mix them, like
many in the Middle East, have only increased my admiration).
No question: our flexible Constitution must be respected by all,
independent of any religious beliefs. A wise way to preserve such
delicate balance between religious believes and civic or legal
responsibilities seeks to avoid direct clashes with crucial
values--specially when those values emerge from both religious and
civic attitudes in the paradigm of "majority rules, minority rights".
This bill, however, will create significant stress in the social
fabric: will I incur a sin of omission to abide by this law? Or will
I risk jail because no human being will be left to die, nor to suffer
unfair imprisonment, nor to go without basic help in food and clothing
if I can help her within the limited scope of my modest resources?
Will I give a helping hand to a pregnant young mother or let her child
die due to lack of food and medicine, a child that cannot yet choose?
Shouldn't we, as Americans, reject, as a threat to our national core
values, the "institutionalization" of a permanently disenfranchised
under-class without voting rights, no legal protection, teeming masses
vulnerable to organized crime and sordid interests?.
The debate must be refocused. To hide behind the "legal" or "illegal"
binary hurts our country and, very directly, our own personal
welfare. American leaders, hopefully including some unbiased and
knowledgeable thinkers, should engage the migration “theme” from a
national perspective--and guide our polity’s redefinition of what is
"legal" or "illegal" through a more rational discussion.
Most illegal migrants are hard working people, who, literally, are
building tomorrow's America. Too many immigrants are not welcomed.
What is too many? Is this a local or national problem? What do we mean
by "hard working."? Are these hard working people destroying job
opportunities for those who were here first, or creating markets that
will fuel job creation? Do they improve our competitiveness vs.
globalizing trends depressing our salaries or do they compound those
pressures?
A national debate should inform our laws and
legal framework on this sensitive theme, a debate guided by a prudent
analysis of trade offs in real benefits, costs and values; a national
discussion held by the diverse interests comprising our great
society, including those representing minorities; one that could
neutralize an on-going hate campaign launched by some regional and
national leaders that corrodes our national values and confuses the
issues. This political decision is too important to be defined by
politicians. Let's be pragmatic and make America greater, today,
tomorrow, always.
__________________________________
Contact Felipe Manteiga at:
pmanteiga@cox.net
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed by HispanicVista.com (www.hispanicvista.com) without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)