Thursday, May 31, 2007

Did Someone say 'Amnesty'?

The rather bold initiative approved by the US Senate and supported by the president to address illegal immigration has prompted all sorts of scare-tactic e-mails in which those who don’t bother to read the proposal and learn more about exactly what it entails promise the imminent end of American civilization as we know it. Misinformation runs rampant especially when elected officials pander to a particular audience whose attention they happen to hold with promises to “do something” about this terrible problem, determined as they may be to protect our American way of life. And they manage to do this with well-placed sound bites long on rhetoric and short on substance. Hence the misinformation.

For those conscientious Americans who adhere to a lawful lifestyle in which they NEVER violate any law at any time, “amnesty” is THE dirty word which threatens this American way of life. This “travesty of justice” is the means by which illegal aliens are promised all the benefits of the American lifestyle without having had to pay their dues, coming into this country illegally, thus circumventing the legal process. After all, are we not a nation of laws? According to those who cry, “Amnesty, hell!”, these undocumented workers will automatically begin drawing Social Security benefits, overrunning public hospitals with demands for free medical services, and effectively bottle-necking the whole public welfare apparatus and stretching thin already very limited resources.

These fears are, for the most part, unfounded yet are given plenty of life through the sound bites of ambitious politicians and careless e-mails from the uninformed. It is not entirely unlike the days of Hitler when he successfully convinced much of the German nation that Jews were the foundation for every misery each citizen was enduring. He was able to sell it because, I think, human nature is such that we would much prefer to blame someone or something else for our perceived misery rather than to admit that we could perhaps do better for ourselves with just a little effort, competition notwithstanding.

This is not to suggest that those who oppose the Senate’s proposal are Nazi-like, and calling all opposition “racist” is also unfair. Rather, it is a suggestion that we may need to look a little more closely at exactly what fears we actually do have and whether we have a right to them. I suppose it’s ok to enjoy a self-pity party if we like, but it serves no purpose beyond enhancing our own level of misery and creating a problem that does not actually exist … or does it?

We have to deal in reality, and we must be careful about facts. Even more than this, we must become focused on exactly what it is we intend to accomplish. Are there really more than 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the US? How did we manage to document that which is supposedly “undocumented”? Even if this number is fairly accurate, what of it? Are we proposing to deport each one? Will this solve the problem? My only point in bringing this up is that I don’t see that we are being very realistic in what we hope to achieve by so-called “immigration reform”.

Of course we live in a post-9/11 world and we always will, but we must not allow ourselves off the hook for proposing that which is logistically impossible but is, instead, politically expedient. This government does not have the capacity to locate, process, and deport 12 million persons. I would dare to suggest that at this time there are probably three immigrants entering into the US illegally for every one we deport, meaning that we will expend enormous resources to do nothing more than to spit in the wind. If my statement is even close to accurate, it would demand that border security is where any reasonable proposal must actually begin. In fact, it may be the only proposal we can reasonably deal with for the moment.

Having controls in place so that border traffic can be more carefully monitored and those coming into the US can be traced and accounted for has everything to do with border and national security and must not be brushed aside for any reason. Stringent requirements are necessary so that we can know who is coming into the US and why even as we are mindful that those responsible for the 9/11/01 attacks were in this country legally.

I think the burning question for citizens now is whether we can go backward from here. The debate seems to be centered on how to address the particular problem of illegals who are already here. In the national security vernacular, knowing who these people are and why they are here is of the utmost importance. In the world of commerce, there are many who do not want too many questions asked as it has been pointed out more than once that the American economy may take a major hit if all 12 million were to be rounded up and sent home. On the human rights front, we must acknowledge the potential for, and reality of, exploitation by those who play on the undocumented workers’ common fear of being sent back to their native country by paying them substantially less than what they should be rightfully paid. Whom will the undocumented workers report abuses to?

We cannot turn our backs on national security concerns nor can we turn our backs on the reality of unscrupulous employers who have as much to gain by keeping illegals here and in a state of fear as they have to lose if these workers are found and deported. We also must confront the certain knowledge that public service resources can only go so far. The US Congress has its hands full in this remarkable balancing act as they seek to address the concerns not only of currently registered voters but also those of potential, future voters as well.

No comments: