Historically, the U.S. has regularly faced fraught political conflicts over immigration. I'm not going to recount all that history, I just want to keep in mind that controversy about this subject is definitely not new. What I will do here is try to sort out the issues, because there seems to be a lot of confusion. There are not just two kinds of immigration or immigrants, legal or illegal. It's more complicated.
First -- and this is important so pay attention! -- the so-called crisis at the southern border is not about illegal immigration. The people who are massing along the border and who have crossed in large numbers and been bussed to northern cities by Greg Abbot and flown to Martha's Vineyard by Ron DeSantis are not in the country illegally. If they were, they would simply have been immediately deported. They are asylum seekers. By current U.S. law and international treaties, people who enter the country and who have a credible claim for political asylum or refugee status must be given a hearing.
The status of these people is that they are in the United States "under color of law," awaiting a legal hearing on their claim for asylum. The problem is that the courts are backed up and it takes a long time for their cases to come up. When they finally do, most claims are denied and the people are in fact deported. Some get refugee status. The solution to this problem is not to build a wall at the southern border, which is ridiculous, inane, physically impossible and would be horribly environmentally destructive. The solution is to hire more judges and move the cases faster. And no, they are not coming from prisons or mental hospitals. They are families for whom conditions in their countries of origin are intolerable. Arguably, it wouldn't be a bad idea to relax the standards and accept more refugees and asylees, but that's a separate question which I will now get to . . .
Some of the people who are in the U.S. illegally did cross the border illegally, but many, probably most, overstayed visas. They cannot and do not receive any government benefits. They can't get "welfare" (which doesn't really exist any more anyway), food stamps, Medicaid, or any other benefits of any kind. Neither can people awaiting asylum hearings, although they could legally receive work permits. Furthermore, people who are not U.S. citizens, even legal permanent residents, cannot and do not vote. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying to you.
People who are in the U.S. illegally, therefore, work, because they must. There is a labor shortage in the U.S. right now, and it is basically impossible for farmers to hire enough legal residents or guest workers. It is also impossible to hire enough people in the meat processing industry. Without undocumented immigrants, crops would rot in the fields, and it would be impossible to turn cattle and sheep and chickens into the products in the supermarket. In fact, where there have been crackdowns, crops have in fact rotted in the fields. If you are complaining about grocery prices, the last thing in the world you want to happen is to expel all those people who are putting food on your table.
The final category is legal immigration. This is very limited right now. In case you didn't know it, the U.S. has a demographic problem in that the birth rate is below the rate of replacement, which means that the ratio of retired people to workers is steadily falling, which means that we risk not having a sufficient work force to fund Social Security and Medicare, or for that matter just to sustain our current level of economic output. Therefore it is worth asking whether we should increase the volume of legal immigration. One way to do that would be to offer legal status to people who have been in the country for a substantial period and have been law abiding -- as the vast majority are. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than U.S. citizens. That way, the people who pick crops could keep doing it, with legal protections against exploitation, and you could keep eating, which I presume you want to do.
Now, you might not agree with my modest proposals, but if you want to disagree, it has to be on the basis of the true facts which I have put in bold type. These are the real issues and the actual public policy questions at stake. And no, my blood is not being poisoned.
2 comments:
In the MAGA lexicon "immigrant" is code for "dark skinned". I understand that Trump once bemoaned the fact that we don't have more immigrants from Scandinavia.
The vast majority of us are, or are descended from, immigrants. The only folks who were actually wanted here and invited to come here by Americans were black people from Africa. Of course, those invitations were exceptionally rude. That means that they're the only Americans who are not descended from immigrants. Perhaps they should be tasked with deciding what to do with the rest of the rabble that piled in here unbidden.
Any attempt to immigrate here is a huge hassle, and for most (who aren't betrothed to a TV personality) it is fraught with uncertainty. Anyone who chooses to try must believe that they have the wit and the stamina to overcome the hurdles they'll face - and the courage/optimism to be willing to take those risks. - - - - That sure sounds like the kind of people we'd like to have in our neighborhood. (I sometimes wonder how much of our success as a country is due to the self selection effects of immigration.)
I suspect that part of some folks' resistance to immigration is the unacknowledged fear that they won't be able to compete with people who have successfully passed this trial by fire.
Amen! Well stated, Chucky.
Post a Comment