"I'm illegal. So what?"
Is a rally of illegal immigrants planned for a city near you?
The estimate in this article is of 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. I wonder how anyone can know how many illegals there actually are, given that they are illegal and presumably avoiding detection.
However, according to The Center for Immigration Studies:
"Approximately 1 million people receive permanent residency annually. In addition, the Census Bureau estimates a net increase of 500,000 illegal immigrants annually."
By the Census Bureau's U.S. Population Clock, as of this morning, 13:15 GMT (EST+5) May 01, 2007, there are 301,738,523 people in the US. According to the CIS 11.5 percent of that number is foreign-born. "The annual arrival of 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants, coupled with 750,000 annual births to immigrant women, is the determinate factor— or three-fourths— of all U.S. population growth."
There seems to be general agreement that SOMETHING must be done about U.S. immigration policy, especially as concerns the influx of illegal immigrants across our borders. According to the Yahoo article I cite above, "The (White House immigration reform) plan would grant illegal immigrants three-year work visas for $3,500 but also require them to return home to apply for U.S. residency and pay a $10,000 fine. It has been roundly criticized by immigrant groups."
I have two questions. The first is that I wonder how on earth we deal with 12 million illegals and half a million more each year. It does not effect me where I live, but I read that there is a negative impact elsewhere. Then there is the question of how our current legal immigration system works. Is it working well for us?
Technorati Tags: 
These demonstrations really
These demonstrations really are disgraceful. And to answer your question succinctly--no, it is a bad joke. Much of the anecdotal evidence I know indicates that the system in many ways treats illegal immigrants better than legal immigrants (of Hispanic origin, and Mexicans in particular).
An argument for inefficient government.
The demonstrations are emblematic of why anyone would choose to live in America. Even illegal immigrants can demonstrate in the US. Apparently some did not attend, because they were afraid of being recognized as illegals and deported because of the discovery. There were more demonstrators last year, but I wonder how many people were actually deported for being noticed in the demonstrations. It is not as if there were massive round-ups at the rallies, or were there and I missed that?
This is not argue against your point at all, is it? It is amazing that we treat illegals so little differently than legal immigrants. I still do not see exactly what we do about this problem and remain a nation of free people. I think we would have to change the nature of our government and a citizen's relationship to government to tackle this problem efficiently. In this, I might be all for inefficient government.
Amerika
I did miss something, but here's how it works here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070503/D8OST94O0.html
"Investigators will review hundreds of hours of video of an immigration rally..." to see if the police misbehaved, not to look for illegal immigrants for deportation.
I am sorry if I offend liberals, but this is the most liberal nation on earth, no matter what some say about "Fortess Amerika".
Thanks for the link.
Right, and who knows, it might be illegal for them to use the tapes to look for illegal immigrants for deportation. I think "Hostess Amerika" is more appropriate.
Kate, The 'massive round
Kate,
The 'massive round ups' do not occur at rallies, but take place in raids on businesses employing undocumented workers. Those caught in the net are sent to concentration camps like the Don Hutto center in Texas. (And no, I am not using a pejorative term in order to offend- that is the language that ICE was using not all that long ago. Its been sanitized of late, and is now called a 'family residence facility.')
You seem to argue that 'illegal immigrants' should not be allowed to protest in the United States, and seem to suggest that there should be repercussions for protesting so openly. So what else would you suggest 'illegals' be deprived of? Access to schools and education? Service from our local water companies? Medical treatment at hospitals? Housing?
And how is it that the police should police based on xenophopic criteria? Stop every Hispanic, citizen or not, and ask for ID? Why stop with those who appear Hispanic? How about Korean, Chinese, French, Italian, Irish, Pole...? Those 'illegals' that you refer to are not all Hispanics. No one is breaking the law simply by engaging in a planned (and presumably permitted) protest.
timothy,
The problem with relying upon anecdotal comments to make your point is that I have a thousand examples to offer to show the contrary. But it is the 'hostess amerika' that deserves mentioning. What exactly is 'hostess' amerika? Aren't we considered the land of opportunity? Didn't we pride ourselves at one time as being 'the great melting pot'? Doesn't the inscription on the statute of liberty read "give us your tired, your poor"?
And what is it that makes you think that immigrants receive a 'free lunch'? I live in a state with a fair number of undocumented workers, many working in agriculture and construction. And when I go to the store and am in the check out line, these people pay taxes on their purchases, just as I do. When they buy a car, they pay taxes, just as I do. When they own a home, their homes are assessed taxes just like mine is. Our property taxes in this state are used to fund local schools, and if immigrants do not own a home, they receive the same benefit that native born americans receive if those native born live in an apartment. Some of the undocumented workers I know have a social security card, and social security is deducted from their paychecks, just like it is on mine. The difference, however, is that every year these people receive a letter from the IRS telling them that their social security number does not match some specified item, and as a result, the amount of social security payments deducted from their paycheck will not be credited toward their retirement benefit. 'Oh well' they say, but they do not get a refund. So where is the 'free lunch' that you believe these people are receiving?
Yeah, we white middle class americans have a raw deal.
What does "illegal" mean to you?
Actually, r. johnson, I was not saying that "illegals" ought not be allowed to protest. I was saying that it is so very true of America that they may, despite being here illegally. Legal protests by illegal residents exemplify the openness of America to me.
Since it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants, it is no wonder there are raids on businesses that hire them. Do you have a problem with immigration officials and police enforcing existing law? Yes, I would suggest that if people are here illegally, they should not benefit from the various services you mention. They are not supposed to be here! Again, that they are given health care, service from local water companies, that their children are considered citizens if they are born here, and other such things indicates the openness of America. I find it a pity that we might have to become a more closed society to deal with the presence of illegal immigrants. I also find it a pity that people in cities must lock their doors, or that stores install security cameras to forestall theft, that my car's security system automatically locks its doors, or that women carry pepper spray to deny an attacker the chance to rape them. No, I am NOT suggesting that illegals are responsible for all of those bad things, which I mention because you seem to read my post in a very convoluted way. I do say that we do what we must to prevent illegal activity. Illegals are "illegals" because they working and living here without legal sanction. We are not out of order as a society to seek to stop, detain, arrest or prevent the proliferation of people who perform illegal acts, even coming here to live and work without due process.
Given Health Care?
kate,
Yes we have an open society, and I am glad that you celebrate that. However, my point was that these people contribute to our society in many ways. They are not 'given' health care, water service etc. but pay for it just as you and I do. (I do know of a teenager who drove from Washington back to Mexico with a lacerated kidney to get 'free' medical care, but 'free health care' in the US is another issue.) And it is the US Constitution that says anyone born here is a US citizen. Blame the founding fathers, not those who seek to benefit from the system that our founding fathers created.
Yes, you can focus solely on a person's status: did this person have the right paperwork when they came into this country. The backlog of those trying to become legal does not dissipate, and if you have money, getting citizenship is not that difficult. The rich get richer and the poor get screwed. So when you have people who want to come to this country, to make a better life for their families, to demonstrate capitalism's positive side, I find it ironic that conservatives are those most 'up in arms' about immigrants. It's illegal to drive above the speed limit, litter, and in many cities, honk your horn. That does not stop people from doing those things, nor do we devote untold resources to 'stop' people from doing them. I understand your point on "illegals", but saying 'they are here illegally so send them away' does not solve anything. For some, this is home.
And as to the raids, it is called a family detention center because in the past, a father would simply not show up at home one day, and the wife and kids were left wondering what happend. If both parents get caught in a raid, they are now housed together. A small step forward, but a cruel fate nonetheless. If there is no one to take care of the American born children, they are locked up with their parents, or taken custody by the state.
I have a problem with promoting ideas (a fence, detention, etc) that will not work, or that are not cost effective. Until we move beyond the 'they are illegal so they should not be here' language of Tom Tancredo and others, we will make little progress on this issue. (And no, a 'guest worker' program, creating a second class citizen, will not work and is a recipe for future problems.)
Just the problem
It is a shame how difficult it is to gain legal residence much less citizenship in the U.S. In my original post, I was despairing of a solution to the problem.
Actually, I have read that it is not just conservatives who are upset about illegal immigration. Union and low-wage earners object to illegals coming in and taking jobs at low wages. As to winking at law-breakers, people do get stopped for speeding, but admittedly, I have never seen anyone stopped for littering. Yet, how are we a nation if a person does not have to be a citizen or participate in a complete way in the polity? If people are here illegally, they should not be here. Detention centers sound nasty, but what else can local governments do?
In a general sense, I say that we have a right to control who becomes a citizen. When it comes to faces and cases, I find it all very difficult. And, again, how you send 12 million people back to wherever they came from; I do not see how we are going to do that.
What else can local governments do?
Kate,
Politicians who promise to build a fence or lock up anyone without proper documentation are playing to xenophopic fears. Their 'solution' is not really a solution at all, but a short sighted attempt to say 'we are working on (what some people call) a problem.' Immigrants will still come to the 'land of opportunity' if a fence is built, or if they risk time in jail, or if they can be deported. In an earlier post on this topic, I noted that the EU faced a similar issue when workers from low wage countries flooded the workforce in higher paid countries. In Europe, they recognized that by building the infrastructure and the economic opportunities in the low wage countries, they could 'even the playing field' and neutralize the desire to migrate for better wages. That is not a knee jerk reaction, and it requires long term thinking, something which many politicians in the US are unfamiliar with. Its easier to gain a political following by saying 'build a fence' then it is by explaining why we are spending money 'on those people.'
I recognize the potential problems for any nation that simply says 'our borders are open, please come in.' There seems to be this perception that immigrants are a drain on local government or are getting something for free. I don't see that. I see capitalism at work. When an immigrant will work in the fields for a given wage, and when a US citizen refuses to do the same work for the same price, this is the global economy at work. These immigrants still contribute to the local economy, and unless they are being exploited, they are contributing to our economy. Laws which make it a crime simply to be here make immigrants more likely to be exploited, as they fear law enforcement and do not want to draw attention to themselves.
Keep looking for long term solutions, and don't be swayed by the desire to do 'something' if it makes a long term solution more difficult and more expensive.
Arguing with yourself
Huh, I believe most of the astute readers here at GWH are aware of the “problem”, but thanks for enlightening those readers who do not understand the reason for using “anecdotal” to qualify evidence.
Regarding “Hostess Amerika”, it was at least a little funny and don't read too much into it (well, too late for that).
I said a lot more than I wrote and I did not even draw any pictures. You simply made this up:
“And what is it that makes you think that immigrants receive a 'free lunch'?”
I think nothing of the sort, but I guess you needed this canard to motivate your anecdotes regarding the well-known fact that illegal immigrant labor is taxed (that is, when it can be). Well done.
And, who brought up white middle class Americans? Oh, you did, I’m still wondering why…
I guess putting words in others mouths is a kind of survival skill for lawyers, so I can hardly take it personally. :)
Post new comment