This week, President Bush and the Senate will be working to pass a compromise bill that would offer citizenship to many illegal aliens and create a “guestworker” program. We will hear arguments supporting “legalization” of those who entered the U.S. illegally.

One argument is that people came here illegally to escape poverty. If the U.S. is responsible for alleviating poverty by giving employment and citizenship to those from poorer nations, wouldn’t it make sense for us to take in people from the poorest nations first? There are nations more impoverished than Mexico and the other Latin American countries that most illegal immigrants hail from. For example, the people of the Darfur region of the Sudan are not only poorer, but also have been attacked and driven from their homes. If the U.S. owes citizenship to the world’s poor and oppressed, shouldn’t we bring those refugees here? Wouldn’t the Sudanese be just as hardworking as Latinos are? Perhaps our government doesn’t think so. As Brian DeBose reported in his Washington Times article, “Blacks slam immigration bias,” William E. Spriggs, a senior fellow with the Economic Policy Institute and chairman of Howard University’s School of Economics, charges that the U.S. gives preferential immigration treatment to Latinos over people from countries such as Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
If escaping poverty justifies violations of immigration laws, shouldn’t it justify breaking other laws? After all, some people steal money or food because they can’t afford to feed their families. Why should that be different than taking public education, emergency room care and other services from a country whose citizens paid for them while evading the very taxes that cover such services?

Others argue for “legalization” of illegal immigrants because they risked their lives crossing the desert so they could have better lives here. If that is the case, shouldn’t any behavior that involved personal risk for profit be legal? Burglars risk the possibility of being shot by homeowners so that they can improve their immediate futures by selling stolen goods. Drug dealers who manufacture methamphetamine expose themselves to toxic fumes and risk being killed in explosions. Aren’t they just trying to make a living, too? Illegal immigration is seen by some as a victimless crime. It isn’t. The taxpayers are all victims: The Federation for American Immigration Reform, (FAIR), estimates that state and local costs associated with illegal immigration are $36 billion annually.

Supporters of an easy “path to citizenship” argue that illegal immigrants have “earned” it by working and contributing to the U.S. economy. That is not how the economy or the government functions. Workers earn wages and any other benefits their employers wish to give in exchange for that labor. From the government, workers “earn” the opportunity to pay income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. The U.S. government does not grant any privileges to the employed that are not given to those without jobs. If benefiting our economy is a reason for granting citizenship, why not also grant it to foreign workers who produce goods and provide services in countries that U.S. companies outsource to? Some economists believe outsourcing has helped our economy by providing consumer goods more cheaply and allowing businesses to make enough profit to also expand their operations within the U.S. If that is the case, why not extend citizenship to those in India, China and other nations who work for U.S. companies? If one argues that giving those hardworking people benefits of citizenship isn’t applicable because they don’t reside in the U.S., it belies the argument that people “earn” citizenship by helping our economy through their labor. It demonstrates that the argument is really about being in the U.S. rather than about benefiting the U.S. Immigrants should become U.S. citizens because they truly want to become Americans. That includes obeying U.S. laws from the very beginning, learning our language, assimilating to our culture and valuing the privilege of citizenship.

Supporters of amnesty also argue that deportation breaks up families because children born in the U.S. are citizens. This is more of an argument against continuing birthright citizenship than against deportation. Illegal immigrants chose to enter the U.S. illegally and chose to have “anchor” babies while here illegally. Our government does not kidnap the children of illegal immigrants: If adult illegal aliens are deported, they are allowed to take their kids with them. Those who feel sorry for illegal immigrants who put themselves in that situation, should keep in mind that those who serve our country in the military endure being separated from their families while defending our nation on foreign soil.

A favorite argument from supporters of amnesty is that “we can’t deport all of them.” Fear mongers imply there will be “door-to-door” searches and people will be stopped and questioned for “looking Hispanic.” That is a pointless argument because no one in power has proposed mass deportations in the first place. Secondly, it makes as much sense as proposing amnesty for bank robbers, tax evaders or other law-breakers because “we can’t catch all of them.” We may not be able to deport all, or even most, illegal aliens, but we could start with the illegal immigrants who make up about 28% of our prison population. They don’t have to be “rounded up” because they are already in jail. Additionally, as illegal aliens are arrested for other infractions, their immigration status can be determined and deportation hearings can be arranged. That would be unlikely to affect illegal immigrants who are otherwise law abiding, but it would remove most of those who actually endanger others. Furthermore, a real possibility of deportation may discourage some future immigrants from entering the U.S. illegally.

The best ways to discourage illegal immigration are increasing border security and enforcing our immigration laws. The enforcement only bill H.R. 4437 proposes to do so. Offering amnesty, citizenship and a “guestworker” program to those who illegally entered the U.S., as Senate bill S. 2611 and several other bills propose, will only encourage future illegal immigration. Since the passage of the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act, (IRCA), Congress passed six other amnesties. After each amnesty, illegal immigration increased rather than decreased. Those amnesties did not solve the illegal immigration problem. George Santayana wisely said that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. On the issue of amnesty for illegal immigrants, that is also true of those who ignore history.

Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 05/14/06, all rights reserved

Rate this post:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...