Some Sensible Talk on Immigration Policy 4
With a tip of the hat to Phillybits.
This is not to say that I unequivocably agree with Mr. Bush’s proposals or with just about anything on Redstate.org. In fact, I unequivocably am up in the air over this issue.
There are some things about which I am not up in the air:
The source of immigrants that seems to cause the most upset is Mexico. Persons fulminate that, because the southwestern border is so porous, it may allow for entry of (there’s that word!) terrorists. Yet, none of the 9/11 attackers came through the land borders of the United States.
But our government (and by this I do not mean the Bush administration so much as the Federal Law Enforcement Bureaucracy) has already demonstrated that it cannot spot a terrorist when one is handed to it on a plate.
But who are the proposed laws looking to penalize? Not terrorists, but the overwhelmingly South and Central American population of immigrants.
Furthermore, the proposal to make criminals of those who would feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or heal the sick are, frankly, disgusting. Especially since they are proposed by many of the same persons who in other forums parade their religiosity.
I find the xenophobic hysteria that seems to be sweeping certain quarters of our society, including our elected representatives incongrously assembled, extremely troubling. To this Southern boy who grew up under Jim Crow, many of the proposals smack more of racism than of rationality.
Perhaps the best course of action would be to take the advice of the National Rifle Association as regards gun control: Let’s try enforcing the laws we have.
Coincidently, as I write this, Daniel Schorr’s commentary on All Things Considered addressed just this in his commentary tonight. Marketplace also had a provocative commentary, but the link’s not up yet.
March 27, 2006 at 10:22 pm
It seems to me that enforcing the laws we have is exactly the one alternative that has no chance of happening. But if we did, wouldn’t that also make criminals of the religious workers who harbor illegal aliens?
March 28, 2006 at 5:01 am
Don’t know. That depends on what “harbor” means in the law.
But I do not think current law would make a criminal of a priest or minister who gives communion, of a doctor who splints a broken leg, of a teacher who grades a homework paper, or of a counselor who helps a battered wife (or husband).
And, really, your question does not speak to my larger point: that some of the support for the draconian law passed by the House–not all, some–is motivated, not by any rational concern for the physical security of the USA, but by bigotry against dark-skinned persons who speak Spanish (or French, if they are from Haiti), or so on.
March 28, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Any immigration policy the US proposes or adopts will be criticized as racist. If we are going to change our immigration policy (and I don’t think we are,) fear of racial accusations should not be our primary concern.
March 30, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Hey Frank,
excellent post you’ve put up. Really enjoyed it. I’d have commented earlier but for some reason recently, I had a really hard time loading your site.
Everything ok?