The topic of illegal immigration has been a big issue across the United States. With the 2008 federal election campaigns, we are seeing an unprecedented focus on immigration. Some politicians believe by sounding tough on immigration, they will motivate these constituents to vote for them. Similarly, Sheriff Joe Arpaio is taking the same approach. According to the Arizona Republic article, “As an elected official, Arpaio answers ultimately to voters. And he has staked out positions that play well with the public” (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/29/20080629arpaiogascon06290.html). Critics say, “Sweeps are nothing more than his latest political stunt. The tactics Arpaio is using is easy publicity for him," said Esteban Escobedo, a Tempe attorney. "The immigrants here in Mesa are an easy target for him” (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/29/20080629arpaiogascon06290.html). Political stunt or not, we are seeing an exceptional focus on immigration in Arizona.
To fully understand the issue we must further discuss illegal immigration.
Who are the illegals and why do they come to America?
Illegal immigrants are primarily people from Mexico, Central and South America, who enter the United States illegally to enjoy a better lifestyle, make money and help support their families in the States and abroad. These illegal immigrants are fleeing oppression, chronic unemployment, and poverty. Others that are considered illegals, are people who entered the country legally but became illegal or "out of status" by virtue of overstaying their visas.
What are the demographics of Illegal Immigrants?
Unauthorized Immigrant Population: Countries of origin, 2000-2006
Countries of origin, 2006
Unauthorized Immigrant Population: States of residence in the United States, 2000-2006
States of residence, 2006
A better view of pie charts: (http://immigration.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=845)
A list of few pros and cons of illegal immigration.
Pros:
- It helps keep the economy moving by filling low-wage jobs
- It provides a better lifestyle for those who enter the country illegally
- It creates a pool of consumers for a variety of goods and services
- Farmers are able to plant and harvest less expensively
- Illegal immigrants pay sales taxes
- Illegal residents, who are property owners, also pay real estate taxes
- Millions of illegals rent properties in depressed areas where renters are hard to find
- They purchase real estate and generate commissions for agents and brokers
- Illegal immigrants contribute to mortgage loan profits
- They open bank accounts that yield interest and dividends to bankers
Cons:
- Difficult prosecution and justice when perpetrators flee the country
- Disparity between legal immigrants who follow the rules and those who don't
- They risk death when traveling the desert to reach the borders
- Those who successfully cross the border inspire those left behind to do the same
- Continued growth of the demand for cheap labor and low wages
- Potential negative effects on working and middle-class citizens
- Mortgage loan fraud
- Imbalance in authorized immigration quotas
- Immigrants, especially the poorer ones, consume a high amount of government resources (health care, education, welfare, etc.) without paying a corresponding high rate of taxes
- Less-skilled American citizens earn less money and have fewer job opportunities because they must compete with immigrants in the job market
The current problem with both sides of the social movement is the current immigration policy. After the 9/11 attacks, immigration policies have been created without terrorism policy in mind. According to article, “Suspect First: How terrorism policy is reshaping immigration policy”, immigration policy exists largely as a means of fighting terrorism. This merger of immigration and terrorism policy promotes the notion that immigrants are suspects first and welcome newcomers second, if at all” (http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/3481320?seq=3&Search=yes&term=terrorism&term=illegal&term=immigration&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dillegal%2Bimmigration%2Band%2Bterrorism&item=2&ttl=806&returnArticleService=showArticle).
The pro immigration side claims they want to “Stop the genocide against immigrants” and want “Full rights for all immigrants” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12578901/). A pro immigration activist, Isabel Garcia, of Derechos Humanos, says, "We have been encouraging them to come unlawfully for 100 years. They have followed our economic forces to build the richness of this country. So immigrants should have full rights" (http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=8259322).
Anti-immigration protestors, such as Patrice Habberstad says "We're fed up with our laws being ignored. We are for legal immigration. Immigration makes this country great. But when you do it illegally it's defeating our country” (http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=8259322).
Why is the immigration debate so complex?
The reasons are apparent contradictions of simultaneously promoting integration while insisting on separation. Ruben Navarrette explains,
• The hypocrisy. We have two signs on the U.S.-Mexican border: "Keep Out" and "Help Wanted."
• The racism. With lightning speed, the debate went from anti-illegal immigrant to anti-immigrant to anti-Mexican.
• The opportunism. Too many politicians are trying too hard to portray themselves as tough on illegal immigration.
• The simple solutions. "Build A Wall." "Deport All Illegals." A quick rule of thumb: If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's not a workable policy.
• The naiveté. People ask why Mexico won't help stop illegal immigration. Hint: Last year, Mexicans in the United States sent home $25 billion.
• The profiling. Dark skin and Spanish surnames shouldn't be proxies for undocumented status. Been to Arizona lately?
• The meanness. Nazi-produced Internet video games let players shoot illegal immigrants crossing the border. Fun stuff.
• The amnesia. Americans think grandpa was welcomed with open arms and that he plunged into the melting pot. Whatever.
• The buck-passing. Americans love to blame Mexico for their choices, yelling across the border: "Stop us before we hire again."
• The double standard. The same folks who have zero tolerance for illegal immigrants easily tolerate those who hire them.
(http://quiz.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/navarrette/index.html)
A brief history of contradiction…
The circulation of migrants has been driven by the complex set of social and economic forces. In the era of the Enganche, which was used toward Mexican peasants to recruit for work in the U.S, were mislead of believing that wages would be higher, conditions would be good and interest rates would be reasonable. Then the Bracero program was formed, which consisted of temporary importation of Mexican farmworkers, who became known as braceros, were imported to fix the labor shortage in agricultural. In the 1950’s, mobilized citizenry uproar for federal authorities to do something and to control the border. The INS responded and launched a well-published “Operation Wetback.” This managed to satisfy all sides, putting the INS simultaneously in good stead with growers, the public, nativists, and members of Congress (Massey & et al., 37). Then in 1965, congress passed amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, extirpating overt racism from U.S. immigration policy. There are consistent “back and forth” policy reforms and actions on immigration and still today they continue to surface.
What position do I take and why?
At the beginning of this semester, I chose the pro-immigration side. I thought it was a great idea to research the anti-immigration movement to see if it would change my beliefs. What I come to realize is that I am still pro-immigration because the simple fact that this country is derived by immigrants. My parents are immigrants from Mexico and came into this country to better their quality of life. In order to get rid of the immigration issue we need to find a solution that both sides can agree with. This will be difficult to achieve.
Such proposals from a blogger named Logtar believes that 1) Send corporate America to rehab so they can get over the need for cheap labor. Not just from illegals, but also outsourcing to other countries. How? Make fines so steep that the cheap labor would never offset them. The current law conveniently allows employers to look the other way and say that they're not trained to verify the authenticity of documents. That means that employers who have been exploiting illegals for years would have to change their ways, become strict in hiring only people of legal status and finally start paying decent wages. 2) Introduce legislation streamlining naturalization for the people who are already in the country. Give a deadline for everyone to register as a guest worker and give them a Social Security Card so they can start paying taxes and 3) deny all government services to anyone who is not in the country legally(http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/05/02/131233.php).
After reading many people’s beliefs on the immigration issue, the most prominent belief is that we won't stop illegal immigration as long as it's still relatively easy to enter the country illegally and illegal immigrants can get jobs, free education, health care and the freedoms that are typically reserved to legal residents and U.S. citizens. But are we denying people (illegal or not) their basic human rights by doing so? I believe our current immigration policies are complex and we should not deny anyone to migrate into the United States (in my opinion) that are not criminals and terrorists. Those that are seeking to live a better life, have no criminal record, and are fleeing political repression, armed conflict, and economic crisis should not be denied to come to America. What I find interesting is like Obama, I believe we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico. This will cause a decrease of illegal immigration (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/). Long term economic growth within Mexico will soon eliminate the incentives for international movement and allow that nation to move quickly over the migration hump to become a full partner in the global market economy.
Book Source: Massey & et al. (2002). Beyond Smoke and Mirrors. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
