Ask and ye shall receive ...
Russ asked me to do a post about the recent illegal immigration scuttle, and I had been meaning to do so anyway, so here we go.
Right off the bat let me say this - I sincerely have absolutely no idea how to process all of this. There isn't a clear way to come down on this, though I lean toward thinking much of the legislation is poor policy (and downright not feasible to enforce effectively).
If you view it through the prism of the Christian worldview, it's difficult to comprehend making it a crime for some individuals to seek a better life and an escape from the poverty and despair which ravages communities in Mexico, Central America and the Carribbean. We're called to welcome in the stranger, so I have a hard time justifying penalizing folks just looking for a better way.
Still, we're a society of laws and the law must be respected. Of course even that gets tricky as civil disobedience during the Civil Rights Movement helped produce legislation which ended segregation and combatted institutional discrimination.
The McCain-Kennedy bill is different than some bills, in that it calls for a massive guest worker program and a series of steps to assimilate existing illegal immigrants into our society. This includes the acknowledgement that those who came to the United States broke immigration law and the payment of back taxes and a fine (over a to be determined time frame, depending on the financial security of the immigrants). When that is completed, then they can apply to become full American citizens.
Technically, this isn't amnesty because amnesty would be a blanket forgiveness of a wrongdoing, automatically bringing them into the population without any penalty. The McCain-Kennedy proposal doesn't offer 'forgiveness' but instead sets a series of steps they can undertake to gain citizenship. There's some give with the take.
A bill by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), however, is sharply different and includes (in its original form) the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as harsh penalties for not just illegal immigrants, but those social service agencies which assist them (and we're not talking about 'coyotes' which ferry immigrants across the border, but actually groups which offer services to the poor ... as well as merely giving a thirsting man some water to drink). Understandably, I have strong disagreements with Sensenbrenner's bill. Regardless of where one comes down on illegal immigration, making it a crime to giving someone a drink of water is despicable.
And there are a whole other myriad of bills out there. If I had to choose one, I'd say the McCain-Kennedy proposal is the most sound one as far as balancing the requirements of the law with the reality of the situation ... and that reality is that if we do decide to begin massive deportations of undocumented immigrants, we're going to see some very real and very negative effects on our economy, and the ever-so-slowly growing economy of Mexico ($10 billion a year is sent back to families in Mexico every year by undocumented immigrants seeing how even the lowest wages in the United States are 12 times as much as wages in Mexico). These immigrants work long hours for low wages and are essential to our agricultural and construction industries, as well as numerous jobs in our service sector. Furthermore, these immigrants flood American merchants with this recently earned money, thus keeping our economy chugging along.
That's important to consider as we discuss any type of immigration legislation. Back in my days at the Athens Banner-Herald we had a correspondent who put together an excellent series on the impact of Hispanic and Latino immigrants on the community. He dedicated one of the stories to the commonly heard allegations leveled against illegal immigrants and discovered many of them were false.
For instance, accusations they chew up our services are widely exaggerated. Fear of deportation keeps most undocumented immigrants from even seeking such services, whether through direct contact with the agencies or through a second- or third-party. In Georgia, for instance, illegal immigrants are not eligible for government housing, while only 1.3 percent of welfare expenditures go to Hispanic families (and, again, only legal Latino or Hispanic residents can access this service).
The claim they strain our medical services has some truth, but their presence causes no greater burden than a legal citizen who is simply without health insurance. This makes it very difficult to levy much of the blame for soaring health care costs solely on illegal immigration. Some of the blame, to be sure, but it's a stretch to say it's severe based on most available data.
And illegal immigrants still pay their share of taxes. If they are employed by Wal-Mart or another company and receive a legitimate paycheck, then they pay income tax. If the pay is under the table, as many jobs in construction and landscaping operate, the Hispanics and Latinos must still pay sales and ad valorem taxes when they purchase goods.
Also, Latinos often rely on fake documents to gain work, which mean they frequently pay Medicaid and Social Security taxes on which they'll never see a return. Undocumented immigrants often purchase Social Security numbers from legal residents, which means they pay the taxes but don't receive the benefits later in life.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say there isn't a problem with illegal immigration. The influx of undocumented workers into the country does put a strain on many of our service, even if not to the extent their detractors make it out to be. There's also the question of how to responsibly handle such rapid population growth with regard to development, services, etc.
Furthermore, several of the terrorists who participated in the attacks on 9/11 entered this country illegally, so it's imperative we do something to make our nation secure while respecting and honoring those individuals who are seeking to make a new life for themselves and their families. I believe, however, it's important to note that the terrorists entered our country illegally not by sneaking across the Rio Grande, but through access with Canada and our international airports (yet no one seems to be suggesting we build a massive wall between us and Canada).
Too much of the legislation being bantered about right now, sadly, does have some discriminatory tones to it, and this isn't new for America. Influxes of Italian, Polish, Japanese and Irish immigrants - many of whom came here illegally as well - to this country resulted in unfortunate discriminatory policies and an 'America-first' attitude (the American Party in the mid-1800s is a perfect example of a group rising up to oppose the arrival of immigrants from a different culture). So there seems to be a bit of history repeating itself here, even if the rhetoric is considerably more subtle now.
It's a tough nut to crack. As of now, the McCain-Kennedy proposal appears to be the most sound, but it definitely isn't a perfect piece of legislation by any means.
Right off the bat let me say this - I sincerely have absolutely no idea how to process all of this. There isn't a clear way to come down on this, though I lean toward thinking much of the legislation is poor policy (and downright not feasible to enforce effectively).
If you view it through the prism of the Christian worldview, it's difficult to comprehend making it a crime for some individuals to seek a better life and an escape from the poverty and despair which ravages communities in Mexico, Central America and the Carribbean. We're called to welcome in the stranger, so I have a hard time justifying penalizing folks just looking for a better way.
Still, we're a society of laws and the law must be respected. Of course even that gets tricky as civil disobedience during the Civil Rights Movement helped produce legislation which ended segregation and combatted institutional discrimination.
The McCain-Kennedy bill is different than some bills, in that it calls for a massive guest worker program and a series of steps to assimilate existing illegal immigrants into our society. This includes the acknowledgement that those who came to the United States broke immigration law and the payment of back taxes and a fine (over a to be determined time frame, depending on the financial security of the immigrants). When that is completed, then they can apply to become full American citizens.
Technically, this isn't amnesty because amnesty would be a blanket forgiveness of a wrongdoing, automatically bringing them into the population without any penalty. The McCain-Kennedy proposal doesn't offer 'forgiveness' but instead sets a series of steps they can undertake to gain citizenship. There's some give with the take.
A bill by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), however, is sharply different and includes (in its original form) the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as harsh penalties for not just illegal immigrants, but those social service agencies which assist them (and we're not talking about 'coyotes' which ferry immigrants across the border, but actually groups which offer services to the poor ... as well as merely giving a thirsting man some water to drink). Understandably, I have strong disagreements with Sensenbrenner's bill. Regardless of where one comes down on illegal immigration, making it a crime to giving someone a drink of water is despicable.
And there are a whole other myriad of bills out there. If I had to choose one, I'd say the McCain-Kennedy proposal is the most sound one as far as balancing the requirements of the law with the reality of the situation ... and that reality is that if we do decide to begin massive deportations of undocumented immigrants, we're going to see some very real and very negative effects on our economy, and the ever-so-slowly growing economy of Mexico ($10 billion a year is sent back to families in Mexico every year by undocumented immigrants seeing how even the lowest wages in the United States are 12 times as much as wages in Mexico). These immigrants work long hours for low wages and are essential to our agricultural and construction industries, as well as numerous jobs in our service sector. Furthermore, these immigrants flood American merchants with this recently earned money, thus keeping our economy chugging along.
That's important to consider as we discuss any type of immigration legislation. Back in my days at the Athens Banner-Herald we had a correspondent who put together an excellent series on the impact of Hispanic and Latino immigrants on the community. He dedicated one of the stories to the commonly heard allegations leveled against illegal immigrants and discovered many of them were false.
For instance, accusations they chew up our services are widely exaggerated. Fear of deportation keeps most undocumented immigrants from even seeking such services, whether through direct contact with the agencies or through a second- or third-party. In Georgia, for instance, illegal immigrants are not eligible for government housing, while only 1.3 percent of welfare expenditures go to Hispanic families (and, again, only legal Latino or Hispanic residents can access this service).
The claim they strain our medical services has some truth, but their presence causes no greater burden than a legal citizen who is simply without health insurance. This makes it very difficult to levy much of the blame for soaring health care costs solely on illegal immigration. Some of the blame, to be sure, but it's a stretch to say it's severe based on most available data.
And illegal immigrants still pay their share of taxes. If they are employed by Wal-Mart or another company and receive a legitimate paycheck, then they pay income tax. If the pay is under the table, as many jobs in construction and landscaping operate, the Hispanics and Latinos must still pay sales and ad valorem taxes when they purchase goods.
Also, Latinos often rely on fake documents to gain work, which mean they frequently pay Medicaid and Social Security taxes on which they'll never see a return. Undocumented immigrants often purchase Social Security numbers from legal residents, which means they pay the taxes but don't receive the benefits later in life.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and say there isn't a problem with illegal immigration. The influx of undocumented workers into the country does put a strain on many of our service, even if not to the extent their detractors make it out to be. There's also the question of how to responsibly handle such rapid population growth with regard to development, services, etc.
Furthermore, several of the terrorists who participated in the attacks on 9/11 entered this country illegally, so it's imperative we do something to make our nation secure while respecting and honoring those individuals who are seeking to make a new life for themselves and their families. I believe, however, it's important to note that the terrorists entered our country illegally not by sneaking across the Rio Grande, but through access with Canada and our international airports (yet no one seems to be suggesting we build a massive wall between us and Canada).
Too much of the legislation being bantered about right now, sadly, does have some discriminatory tones to it, and this isn't new for America. Influxes of Italian, Polish, Japanese and Irish immigrants - many of whom came here illegally as well - to this country resulted in unfortunate discriminatory policies and an 'America-first' attitude (the American Party in the mid-1800s is a perfect example of a group rising up to oppose the arrival of immigrants from a different culture). So there seems to be a bit of history repeating itself here, even if the rhetoric is considerably more subtle now.
It's a tough nut to crack. As of now, the McCain-Kennedy proposal appears to be the most sound, but it definitely isn't a perfect piece of legislation by any means.
posted by Jmac at 7:00 PM
5 Comments:
¡Gracias, compañero! Sus rasgones nunca curan enfermedades, pero lo los gritos. Falto su olor, yo falto su almizcle. Años más adelante que me diagnosticarán con lo que llaman "retraso mental."
Why do you say that mass deportations will both hurt our economy and help the economoy of Mexico? It's that latter conjunct I'm curious about. How will this help Mexico's economy?
Overall, though, I agree with your post.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Did I say it would hurt it? That might be a typo or misstatement on my part.
I suggested it would hinder the 'ever-so-slowly-growing economy' of Mexico, but might have been unclear. May bad. The deportations would hurt the Mexican economy because the $10 billion that goes back there gets invested in their businesses.
Make more sense?
"Make more sense?"
Yes!
Post a Comment
<< Home