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 ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics.
