Consider this immigration case from Canada: Three years ago, a Mexican sister and brother moved illegally to Toronto. Brenda Garcia, 30, filed for refugee status, claiming fear of persecution back home for being lesbian. Her brother, 18-year-old Daniel Garcia, enrolled in a Toronto high school. Both said they might be killed upon returning to Mexico City.
Here are two fairly harmless individuals. (Daniel was said to be a very good student.) Toronto neighbors supported their cause. But the judge didn't buy the story of persecution. Canada deported Brenda to Mexico two days after Christmas, and Daniel was returned on New Year's Day.
On the surface, Canada's action sounds heartless. But this is how you retain public support for a large immigration program that generously extends government benefits, including health care, to newcomers. You don't tolerate game-playing with the rules.
And that's what was wrong with such seemingly big-hearted proposals as the recently shelved Dream Act. Backed mostly by Democrats, the legislation would have helped illegal immigrants who arrived in this country as children and completed two years of college or military service become citizens. We saw the parade of exemplary young people. They were a lot like Brenda and Daniel Garcia.
Unfortunately, the Dream Act was an emotionally manipulative end-run around our immigration laws. It added to the public's cynicism over congressional intentions while distracting attention from a bipartisan proposal that would have accomplished the same thing.
You remember the immigration "grand bargain" of 2007. That bipartisan proposal went down in flames because Americans saw it as another amnesty paired with an empty promise of more stringent enforcement.
The proposal for comprehensive immigration reform would put most illegal immigrants on the "path to citizenship," while instituting an enforcement system that would fine or possibly jail employers who hire undocumented workers.
The job magnet that attracts the vast majority of illegal immigrants would thus be gone and the problem mostly solved.
Recall that 2007 was a year before the economic roof caved in. What's left in the gray dawn of 2011 is a new reality that was masked by the housing bubble: Americans with little education have a very tough future in the global economy. The idea of flooding our labor force with low-skilled competition is crazier than ever.
These changing circumstances have sparked the movement to end birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that anyone born on America soil is automatically a U.S. citizen.
Opponents of birthright citizenship argue that it also attracts more illegal immigrants. Actually, the notion that "anchor babies" — American-born children of illegal immigrants — can easily alter their parents' status is something of a myth. Such children cannot sponsor their parent for legal status until they are age 21.
But the idea of U.S.-born children getting all the rights of American citizenship surely must add to the attraction of coming to the United States without papers. Deported illegal immigrants with U.S.-born children often charge American authorities with breaking up their families. (Of course, their children could return with them to their home countries.) Such accusations add to the general impression that birthright citizenship is a loophole for illegal immigration.
By the way, Canada also allows for birthright citizenship. Granted, it's easier for poor Central Americans to cross into the United States than to travel to Canada. But birthright citizenship wasn't a big American concern before we opened our economy to illegal labor.
And dragging this hot element into today's immigration debate will make comprehensive reform still harder to achieve. Get the basics done — no more hiring of illegal workers — and everything else may fall into place.
To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
7 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Froma: - Well said - You have clearly shown that immigration is something liberals and conservatives can agree on. Thank you.
Comment: #1
Posted by: MoneyMatters
Thu Jan 6, 2011 4:25 AM
|
|
|
|
"The proposal for comprehensive immigration reform would put most illegal immigrants on the "path to citizenship, while instituting an enforcement system that would fine or possibly jail employers who hire undocumented workers."
A tone of concilliation doesn't mask the old tricks being conjured here. The 111th congress taught us that "comprehensive" is code for "We'll toss in everything imagineable that has nothing to do with this bill and cover so much ground as to make it unfathomable. Then we'll leave it to bureaucrats to sort it out, regulate it and enforce it."
No thanks.
I agree with putting immigrants on the path to citizenship. It is already illegal to hire them. What are you going to do, make it double-secret illegal to hire them?
The 14th ammendment is fine. It is good policy and enriches our culture.
A simple bill placing officials at the border to register immigrant entry and placing immigrants on a track for citizenship would do it. The wait should be contingent upon maintaining a clean police record and finding viable employment. The waiting period should not be punitive and a citizenship test would be required.
Other than that we should be certain that current laws are being followed.
Is this asking too little?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Tom
Thu Jan 6, 2011 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree the simple way to solve most of the work related immigration issues is to remove the reason people come to the US, jobs.
My career before retirement was in dealing with workforce issues and unemployment. Employers are the key to solving this issue.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Mike
Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Tom, you're right.
The immigration problem was supposedly "solved" during the Reagan Administration. The problem is that the Reagan Administration nor anyone since has been really concerned with enforcing the law on employers. After all, it's the big employers who own the government.
We need to enforce the law as it is, and the work on reform starting from there.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Tom Blanton
Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Thank you for writing, as usual, a very straight-forward, apolitical column. This time, it's on "immigration reform" which has come not to mean that, but code for enabling those who enter this nation illegally, with the conscious decision to defy our immigration and border laws to remain here and become citizens.
I have tried to find the reason that some U.S. citizens see nothing wrong, nor anything harmful to their own nation by advocating for rewarding illegal entry with a "path to citizenship." The most vocal being, in my opinion, the NY Times editorial writers.
I have a theory: Could it be that people who are wealthy enough to live in our most expensive major cities, also might have the income to afford to hire landscapers, maids, cooks and other services that likely hire illegal entrants...and further that because those cities are so expensive, that it is difficult for "find good help." Further, that "good help" being hard to find and keep, that the personal staffs they hire, may be appreciated. And that getting to know their hired laboring staff, those well-off people see ALL illegal entrants as the same as their very special employees? And this all combines with living in a wealthy world apart from the majority of middle and low income U.S. citizens to make those people truly think they are correct in hiring illegals and that it does not harm the nation and further that they are "enlightened" while anyone who decries hiring illegals must obviously be racist or hate-filled, rather than simply concerned that doing so undercuts fellow citizens' ability to obtain some of those service jobs.
My sister lives in Tiburon, CA, and has told me it's even difficult to find teachers and other middle income employees to fill jobs in that expensive area. True. But no reason to become a sanctuary.
I believe most tensions can be traced to economic reasons. Citizens rightly fear jobs going to lesser paid illegals; wealthy fear being able to find employees who will work hard. I just wonder what jobs will remain for citizens who must compete against workers based in less expensive nations worldwide or against illegals hired by companies here. Seems the only different between such companies is that some are able to move overseas for higher profit and those having to remain here, get cheap labors from illegals who come IN.
Even our new drugs are tested in places as Bangladesh, India and southeast Asia and Africa to avoid inspections, high labor costs, and to doctor their test results submitted to the FDA.
Opposing illegal immigration is economic, as is hiring illegals as is illegals' entry. Those who profit, fight for it. The rest of us realize our Congress and President do not represent us on this issue. But nowhere is this racial or ethnic other than fearing the specific illegal groups with highest reproduction rates will eventually control our elections and our nation if given a "path to citizenship' while legal entrants with the advanced degrees and knowledge our nation needs, wait.
Sad and corrupt, come to think of it.
Comment: #5
Posted by: marilyn martinetto
Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Thank you for writing, as usual, a very straight-forward, apolitical column. This time, it's on "immigration reform" which has come not to mean that, but code for enabling those who enter this nation illegally, with the conscious decision to defy our immigration and border laws to remain here and become citizens.
I have tried to find the reason that some U.S. citizens see nothing wrong, nor anything harmful to their own nation by advocating for rewarding illegal entry with a "path to citizenship." The most vocal being, in my opinion, the NY Times editorial writers.
I have a theory: Could it be that people who are wealthy enough to live in our most expensive major cities, also might have the income to afford to hire landscapers, maids, cooks and other services that likely hire illegal entrants...and further that because those cities are so expensive, that it is difficult for "find good help." Further, that "good help" being hard to find and keep, that the personal staffs they hire, may be appreciated. And that getting to know their hired laboring staff, those well-off people see ALL illegal entrants as the same as their very special employees? And this all combines with living in a wealthy world apart from the majority of middle and low income U.S. citizens to make those people truly think they are correct in hiring illegals and that it does not harm the nation and further that they are "enlightened" while anyone who decries hiring illegals must obviously be racist or hate-filled, rather than simply concerned that doing so undercuts fellow citizens' ability to obtain some of those service jobs.
My sister lives in Tiburon, CA, and has told me it's even difficult to find teachers and other middle income employees to fill jobs in that expensive area. True. But no reason to become a sanctuary.
I believe most tensions can be traced to economic reasons. Citizens rightly fear jobs going to lesser paid illegals; wealthy fear being able to find employees who will work hard. I just wonder what jobs will remain for citizens who must compete against workers based in less expensive nations worldwide or against illegals hired by companies here. Seems the only different between such companies is that some are able to move overseas for higher profit and those having to remain here, get cheap labors from illegals who come IN.
Even our new drugs are tested in places as Bangladesh, India and southeast Asia and Africa to avoid inspections, high labor costs, and to doctor their test results submitted to the FDA.
Opposing illegal immigration is economic, as is hiring illegals as is illegals' entry. Those who profit, fight for it. The rest of us realize our Congress and President do not represent us on this issue. But nowhere is this racial or ethnic other than fearing the specific illegal groups with highest reproduction rates will eventually control our elections and our nation if given a "path to citizenship' while legal entrants with the advanced degrees and knowledge our nation needs, wait.
Sad and corrupt, come to think of it.
Comment: #6
Posted by: marilyn martinetto
Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:50 PM
|
|
|
|
I am a life long conservative and believer in all the conservative values of less government, less taxes for job holders, personal responsibility, the right to bear arms and drug testing for every welfare recipient. I have long read your column and often agree with you. I commend your insight into the "immigration" issue and your spunk to be oppositional to most of the leftist thinking concerning these invaders in our beloved nation. I will continue to be a reader of you column.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Dr Bill Greene
Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
