OPINION & EDITORIAL
‘Immigration rights’ demonstrators lack credible message
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
- A downside to diversity, an upside to change (November 16, 2007)
- High schoolers can handle ads (November 8, 2007)
- Health providers must list prices (November 1, 2007)
- Employee policies in need of upgrade (October 25, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Immigration argument flawed (April 14, 2006)
- Immigration issues demand joint effort (March 31, 2005)
- Sensenbrenner wrong on immigration (March 27, 2006)
- Immigrant issues need moderation (September 17, 2007)
- Scapegoating immigrants (April 15, 2005)
by Ryan Masse
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Whether there were 3,000 or 10,000 people who stormed the grounds of the state Capitol Monday, it cannot be disputed that there were undeniably high levels of indignation in the air that sunny day. The anger was aimed at a bill passed in the House that would, among other measures, build 700 miles of fence along the Mexican border, make entering the country illegally a felony and criminalize the act of offering assistance to illegal aliens.
For those demonstrators, however, it seems ire comes with a healthy dose of irony. To wit:
— Protesters point out that America is a country built on the backs of immigrants, one that has welcomed "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" with promises of freedom and justice for generations. Fair enough. Yet one really wonders how much illegal immigrants appreciate those values when they brazenly hoist the flags of their native countries at the protest. I'm not a public relations major, but if one wants America to open its arms to him or her, holding up the American flag might not be a bad idea.
— Protesters deride the House bill as inherently racist. Of course, these protests feature members of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), a student group that seeks to establish a Chicano state in the southwestern United States where the modus operandi would be "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." (For the race, everything. Outside of the race, nothing.) That's not racist at all.
— Peg Lautenschlager is the attorney general of Wisconsin. She is the number one law enforcer in the state; the 'top cop,' you could say. So what is she doing speaking at a rally condoning those who broke the law in entering the country? Ms. Lautenschlager's opponent in the Democratic AG primary, Kathleen Falk, attended the rally as well. What fine upholders of the law they are.
Granted, many demonstrators waved the American flag with pride, most protesters do not belong to MEChA, and the vast majority of ralliers are certainly not named Peg Lautenschlager or Kathleen Falk. Still, it's hard to take seriously a message that is so utterly lacking in credibility.
Indeed, the whole national debate over 'immigrant rights' in the last month has been framed in a decidedly paradoxical manner. Maybe that's a product of liberal media bias. Or maybe the crowds of protesters have just been that effective in advancing their flawed arguments.
First, this isn't a debate about 'immigrant rights.' What we're talking about here is 'illegal immigrant rights.' Extremely few would argue the United States should prohibit immigration of any kind — the economic and cultural ramifications would be disastrous. Many — myself included — would suggest that, given the demand for immigrants in the economy, more should be allowed to enter the country legally.
Most proponents of liberalized immigration laws point to how reliant the United States has become on illegal aliens filling jobs that nobody else really wants to do. And despite the fact that approximately 5 percent of Americans are unemployed, they are correct: Illegal immigrants help fill hard manual labor positions in which an increasingly educated workforce has no interest — and in the process keep food, construction and other costs down for consumers.
But that's only one side of the coin. Since they are willing to work for such poor pay, illegal immigrants help to drive down wages for unskilled but legal workers.
Health costs, which are putting a big-time hamper on all states' budgets, also rise significantly due to illegal immigration. And since children born in the United States become citizens — and because having children significantly lowers one's risk of being deported — immigrants put a serious strain on K-12 resources as well.
Because many illegal immigrants send good portions of the money they earn back to their home countries (how else do you explain why Mexican President Vicente Fox is so happy that so many people are leaving his country), American localities lose out on wages that should be invested back into their economies.
Ultimately, whether the economic impact of large-scale illegal immigration is a net positive or a negative is uncertain. It is not nearly as clear-cut as 'immigration rights' protestors would have you believe.
But one thing is black and white: Illegal immigration is illegal. We are a nation built on the rule of law, which is blatantly flouted when immigrants cross the border illegally. Such people deserve no rights. Illegal immigrants can pose grave security risks, pay some taxes but not others, and show no regard, by entering the country, for the laws of a society — not a desirable characteristic.
So I support Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill, albeit with one major change. There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country today. Mass deportation really isn't feasible. We could grant amnesty to them all as part of legislation that would hinder future illegal immigrants from working in the country. But the United States tried that in the 1980s, and illegal immigration hasn't slowed one bit. A continuous cycle of large-scale amnesty declarations isn't reform at all.
Instead of declaring them felons, we should implement a guest worker program for illegal aliens currently in the country, keep building the fence along the Mexican border and keep the other provisions of Mr. Sensenbrenner's bill intact. Entering the country illegally in the future, however, should be a felony.
And raise the limit on legal immigrants allowed to enter the country each year. They play by the rules; they get rights.
Don't play by the rules, then no rights. There's nothing ironic about that.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science and economics.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 8:04am):
I heard Latinos all over the country got fired from their jobs for taking unauthorized absences from work to attend rallies. It'd be awfully pathetic if they filed lawsuits. I've also read where Mexico is even tougher than the US on illegal immigrants there, to the point where Mexican civilians can make a citizen's arrest if they find an illegal immigrant and take them to the cop shop. and they have the audacity to complain about how they're treated here?! What goes around comes around, kids. Lo siento mucho.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 9:55am):
Great article. I agree 100%!
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 12:11pm):
Why waste the already tight budget for tighter law enforcement when its not going to help in the end? No matter what the government does there will always be illegal immigration. Why not take those funds and put them to something useful like education? I myself would appreciate that because I am still in highschool and will be for another year. Our school could use those funds for books or supplies. That is something we really need and when the government depletes a huge amount of money to build a 700 miles fence on the border just to hold back a small chunk of the illegal immigrants coming in, then its really not worth it. But dont take away the legal immigrants. They take jobs that others dont want, so we might as well let them have it. It needs to be done, so let them do it if they wish.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 12:48pm):
"But one thing is black and white: Illegal immigration is illegal. We are a nation built on the rule of law, which is blatantly flouted when immigrants cross the border illegally."
Just because a law exists doesn't make it "right." What's the point of having the Supreme Court if no law should ever be challenged?
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 1:03pm):
This editorial illustrates the Orwellian direction that our country is taking and how its citizens sit idly by, selfishly thinking of our pocketbooks. Can anyone who has actually seen the Statue of Liberty and read its inscription or seen the Constitution and read its inscription believe that building a seven hundred mile long fence is in the spirit of freedom that America is built on? I remember a nation with a wall, it was called East Germany.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 1:43pm):
great article.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 2:05pm):
i wonder if my employer would give me the day off and my daughter could get a free afternoon away from school to attend a pro-life rally in madison. doubt it.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 2:26pm):
"I remember a nation with a wall, it was called East Germany."
Hey moron, that wall was to keep people from escaping the country, not to keep criminals out. Instead think "great Wall of China", a wall to keep invaders out.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 3:03pm):
Give us your tired, hungry, poor yearning to be placed in a specific area where they can be identified as a victim class and be pandered to by politicians who want to get elected so they can expand the size and breadth of the nanny state. If only the left wanted to them to be Free.
Build the wall and require a pathway towards citizenship that demands that all immigrants to this country are committed to the constitution and the English Language. No drivers tests in Spanish, as we don't have them in Russian. No double standards for the non-european mexicans who are fleeing the oppression of a very white western european looking government.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 3:48pm):
We don't have an official language. We can't demand that people learn a language till that happens.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 4:00pm):
Surprisingly good article overall...however the guest worker plan really hasn't worked in Europe and implementing it here wouldn't be a smart idea. In fact, the guest worker program has alienated a class of people in Europe, some of whom have turned to organized terrorism as an outlet for their anger due to being treated as 3rd class citizens.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 4:19pm):
Take our troops out of Irag and send them to Mexico, our real enemy!
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 4:55pm):
Take our troops out of Germany, Japan and Korea. Use them to protect our border instead of that of some other country.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 5:01pm):
"...the guest worker program has alienated a class of people in Europe..."
Wrong. Our guest worker program would not allow them to stay here indefinitely. they can work here for a certain amount of time, then they have to leave. If they cause any trouble, they are instantly and permanently barred from re-entering the country.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 5:35pm):
"Take our troops out of Germany, Japan and Korea. Use them to protect our border instead of that of some other country."
They are out of those countries, idiot. They're in Iraq and Afghanistan now.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 5:42pm):
"We don't have an official language. We can't demand that people learn a language till that happens."
And I mean, it's not like much of the South West, like large populations in Texas and California, lived in the state and spoke spanish before their states were "annexed" by the US.
And the country was discovered by non-anglophones, and much of the land was settled by Germans, Dutch, French, Spanish, Polish, Norweigans, Russians, Mexicans, etc. And all those slaves brought in from Africa, they had native languages too. Oh, and all those "savages" we stole the land from, they had a multitude of languages.
I think the fact that this is almost completely a nation of immigrants from all different walks of life completely justifies different languages, and the pride of one's homeland or heritage.
I know Lou Dobbs said it should be illegal for anyone to fly a flag besides the American one, but no law can take away my Irish and German heritage.
And lastly, many countries acknowledge their diversity and have dual language laws. Ireland has pockets of predominantly Gaeilge, but that and English are spoken throughout. Canada has dual language, since Quebec is dominantly Francophone--even in Ottawa, they have native French speakers working, but no one complains. Even in Chicago, they have trilingual areas, with signs in English, Spanish, and Polish. Are we going to tell them to assimilate and lose their language? No? I wonder why not.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 6:56pm):
"Our guest worker program would not allow them to stay here indefinitely."
What happens if they have a baby?
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 8:36pm):
"They are out of those countries, idiot."
Check your facts moron. There are certainly more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but there are tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan and Korea.
Anonymous (April 13, 2006 @ 8:44pm):
"before their states were "annexed" by the US."
"those "savages" we stole the land from"
Most land titles in the world are originally "By right of conquest". The Huns didn't start out living in Hungary. I'm sure that the Celts would like their land back from the Angles and Saxons but then they have a bone to pick with that Norman guy, William the Conqueror.
Maybe the solution is another Mexican War? 51st state? They do have oil and other resources.
Anonymous (May 1, 2006 @ 11:16pm):
Thanks for writing this article.
I'm doing a project, identifying fallacies, and this is making it really simple!
