OPINION & EDITORIAL
Immigrant issues need moderation
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Gerald Cox:
- Barack Obama secret Muslim; good for you, Hillary (April 29, 2008)
- Destroy ASM? Too late (April 21, 2008)
- Put transient threat in perspective (April 14, 2008)
- Vigilance key to preventing tragedy (April 7, 2008)
- Stick with seg fee pros in election (March 24, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Bill O'Reilly hits new lows in Geraldo beef (April 11, 2007)
- Illegal immigration can aid Dems (November 3, 2006)
- Engaging deeper dialogue (November 12, 2007)
- Immigration debate truly cultural, not economic (November 16, 2007)
- Keep on turning in illegal immigrants (February 21, 2008)
Share This:
by Gerald Cox
Monday, September 17, 2007
Too often, the immigration debate is addressed by extreme voices seemingly uninterested in compromise. Add to this unproductive mess the fact that any discussion of the immigration issue invariably turns to one of race. It is such a touchy subject that not even the U.S. Senate, as it so aptly exemplified this summer, wants to touch it with a 20-foot pole wrapped in toilet paper.
The immigration issue has been polarized most effectively. We are told that if we protest the flow of undocumented immigrants, we do so because of some form of protectionist racism. Others insist our desire for a robust and attractive immigration policy make us miscegenation traitors. However, some of us are not so much interested in sitting on the fence, as much as tearing it down. One can be against illegal immigration, all about legal immigration and, get this, not be a Holocaust-denying racist — all at the same time.
There are those of us who have not been reduced to extremist positions. We meander, much to the consternation of those who would seek to demonize the opposition, in the noncommittal hue of the gray in the midst of the black and white that has been made of the immigration issue. We've got no beef with Canadians or our southern neighbor Mexico, and we love Haiti and its quaint little government just as much as the next guy. With open arms, we welcome the ethnic diversity that serves as a verdant display of the freedom and livelihood our nation offers to people of any background. We wouldn't have it any other way. It just seems to us that, if you appreciate our rich tapestry so much, you would gladly join it legally.
On Thursday, Dave Gorak, executive director of the Midwest Coalition to Reduce Immigration, wrote an ill-conceived letter that appeared in The Badger Herald. I'd say the amount of hateful e-mails and comments the letter received rivals the amount I receive as a result of my weekly columns. To his credit, Mr. Gorak raises two valid points in the immigration debate. First, characterizing the enforcement of our nation's immigration laws as repressive is a misnomer. Further, Mr. Gorak implies that those who are so dissatisfied with the condition of their nations may have their interests best served by remaining in their country and demanding change from their governments. However, the overtly abusive rhetoric of Mr. Gorak and his anti-immigration colleagues serves little purpose= in a debate that has produced more anger than progress.
Those who would have us open our borders to an uncontrolled flow of immigration also offer a one-sided approach to a complex issue. Last year, massive rallies were held across America in support of immigrant rights. Too often, however, these rallies turned into pulpits that broadcast a tendentious message of uncontrolled immigration, and assertions that those of us who prefer a lawful immigration process to an illegal one as unrepentant racists. Further, by equating legal immigration with illegal immigration, they serve to alienate those of us who sympathize with their cause.
It's not that we, the moderate few, think the problem doesn't need fixing. While the draw of a life lived within the borders of our nation should be enough to attract outsiders already inside of it, it may be wise to provide further incentive to do so legally. Expedited naturalization and visa processes, as well as increases in the amount of people allowed to do so, all sound like reasonable places to start. However, it's time for those of us in the middle to have our voices heard on this issue.
We appreciate the effort that undocumented immigrants put into coming here illegally and understand that their lives are nothing to thumb one's nose at. We realize that there are jobs here that a fair amount of able-bodied Americans are unwilling to do at the wages these jobs offer. We are impressed by hair-raising tales of cross border expeditions spent avoiding border patrol agents and local authorities. We remark upon your ingenuity in marrying an American citizen before your visa runs out.
However, there is, to the moderate few, a journey that is far more impressive. This journey is longer, though far less dangerous. This journey lacks the adventurous flare of a cross border smuggling run, but its end is far more satisfying. It is the journey of a legal immigrant who has waited years to live in and contribute to his or her new nation.
I rather like the story. So does that make me a racist or a traitor?
Gerald Cox (gcox@badgherherald.com) is a senior majoring in economics.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 5:05am):
Get this straight (again). Immigrants come to this country legally, there are procedures, it can be done (my wife has done and so have many more). There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, they are criminals. They are not undocumented workers, they are criminals. Many have good intentions, many do not. If they were really as good as many claim, they would make an effort to enter legally. I see you are trying to be somewhat rational, but you are really missing the point.
This is not radical thinking, is it radical to expect someone, anyone to obey (and perhaps the government to enforce for a change) the law? I know if someone got the crap beat out of them while walking down State street, law enforcement would be expected to get involved and punishment would be sought because laws are meant to be obeyed and enforced. If we enforced some laws like we expect immigration laws to be enforced, when someone got the crap beat out of them, the beater would be considered a hero and the beatee would be left on the street bleeding to death.
Ask yourself, do I have a right to enter your domicile and stay there without asking you first? Will you pay me to do so? I would be arrested and prosecuted as a tresspasser. What is the difference?
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 7:59am):
Either move the immigrants here, or move your jobs there. Either way sucks, but this is a "global economy," bitch.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 8:33am):
Mexico is socialist (supposedly). If socialism is so great, why are so many Mexicans willing to break the law and come to an evil capitalist country? Why aren't more Americans scrambling to cross the border and enter Mexico illegally? Hail to socialism!!
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 9:23am):
"and, get this, not be a Holocaust-denying racist..."
Uh, Gerald, what's the Holocaust got to do with the immigration issue?
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 9:32am):
"We appreciate the effort that undocumented immigrants put into coming here illegally "
Is the effort of the bank robber who digs into a vault also appreciated? I mean he does it to feed himself and his family. Think of the children!!!
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 10:18am):
The problem comes when people like Sensenbrenner or Tom Tancredo lead the immigration debate. It's hard to believe they want any form of immigration, even the legal kind.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 11:05am):
I agree with the people that say it is not a racism issue. The people pushing for keeping the illegals out (myself included) would have the same policy if it was a bunch of poor, non-English speaking, non-tax paying, white people trying to get in illegally.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 11:35am):
I'm just as curious as 9:23am about Gerald's injection of the Holocaust into an issue where the Holocaust has little or no relevance. Gerald, would you care to explain yourself?
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 12:14pm):
8:33-- Post-revolution was never socialist, save possibly for a few stints here and there (mainly 1934-40). Besides, would the US have helped install it and then prop up it's corruption if it were truly socialist?
Ryan Stibbe (September 17, 2007 @ 12:26pm):
All I have to say is that I agree full-heartedly with Gerald. It's about time someone stood up to the people on both th extremes. Thank you for expressing what I believe to be the feeling of the majority of Americans.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 12:29pm):
Isn't racism handy?
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 1:26pm):
5:05am:
Way to rant about a problem without any sort of prescription for changing the way we handle immigration. Do you recommend we hunt down, arrest, and deport all illegal immigrants? And are you aware of the costs (both direct, and in lost productive capacity) we would have to endure?
You can yell all you wish about criminality and righteousness, but in the end, you've committed nothing substantial to this debate. Sounds a lot like what Gerald is talking about, doesn't it?
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 2:16pm):
1:26,
Way to once again skew things, I said, enforce the laws, that is the way to solve it. Whether that is to punish those who hire (which would be more effective than deportation) or denying illegals access to government programs. Take away the carrot and the rabbit goes away. We have the laws, enforce them!!
You want to change the requirements? Sure, do so, but DO NOT reward anyone who is here illegally, at a minimum, make them go back and apply like everyone else!!
The reason we are in the bind we are today is because EVERYONE in government looks the other way. Those who do not are punished for enforcing the law.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 2:54pm):
There are far more serious problems facing this country, such as high urban crime rates, drunk driving, date rape, and government corruption.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 4:50pm):
5:05 a.m.
what I got from you was blah, blah blah. Gerald didn't put down immagrents coming to America the leagl way (in fact he actually praised them.) You had a, what seemed to be, endless rant about a bunch of nothing. You had nothing to say that could have been seen as productive in this matter.
Anonymous (September 17, 2007 @ 7:45pm):
4:50
If you can't understand what was said by 5:05, you do your public education proud. I guess you don't understand what it means when one expect the law to be obeyed and enforced. Is it radical to expect laws to be enforced? Is it wrong? What laws should be selectively enforced?
I know, when you can't think of a reasonable arguement, it is always easier to pretend you don't understand and hope others reading your posts agree.
Just curious, what did you not understand? Show us all the blah blah blah.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
