The topic came up recently during an informal discussion with business colleagues. One executive looked around the table: “I don”™t see any American Indians here.” Then he added, “We are a country of mutts.”
No arguments there.
But we have laws here, another colleague offered. And so the discussion heated up.
However we feel about the millions of men and women who are in the United States illegally ”“ and the numbers are higher than 12 million; I”™d say closer to 20 million ”“ the fact is they are here and we need to address their fate. We also need to come to terms with “terms” ”“ that is, how do we refer to people who are living in this country illegally? “Undocumented worker” is ambiguous, at best, and “felon” is radical, to say the least. I”™ll use “illegal immigrant” here.
One of the reasons so many people find the United States so attractive, a colleague pointed out, is because we have laws. “This is not a banana republic.” He has no objections to immigrants coming here, but he gets ticked off over how some go about it.
“That”™s just not fair,” he said, referring to President Bush”™s proposal to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. “It”™s a slap in the face of the law.”
But, another countered, Is the law always just? Consider many of the “rotten” laws that have been overturned over the decades ”“ including the one that allowed employers to pay women less than men for the same job and the South”™s Jim Crow statutes.
There are many laws. Some are good; some are stupid. But they are laws, nonetheless, and we cannot choose which ones we want to obey.
Local governments and law enforcement are being put in precarious positions having to deal with immigration issues because the federal government has failed to act.
The feds must find a logical way to address immigration. The numbers of people coming here are growing. I asked my colleagues, “What are we doing about it?”
How do we get out of this hole?
Who says we”™re even in a hole?
Nobody else seems willing to harvest our food.
Besides, this isn”™t the first wave of immigrants.
And consider all that they contribute to our society.
Yes, but consider the financial burdens they place on society.
One thing is for sure: We cannot ignore those who are here and it”™s ridiculous to believe the government will ”“ or even can ”“ round up the masses and deport them.
It”™s true the current situation is putting a burden on local governments, public schools and the already-overburdened health-care system. Any wonder many taxpayers are outraged?
And then there are issues of alleged racism, harassment and resentment. Consider the day-laborer situation in neighboring Westchester County. The village of Mamaroneck recently settled a lawsuit in which six anonymous day laborers, who are Hispanic, sued the village, claiming harassment by police. The village board has agreed to pay $550,000 for the plaintiffs”™ legal fees and the police will not be allowed to ask people about their immigration status.
Whether or not police did anything wrong is not for me to speculate. Whether or not the plaintiffs in this case violated local laws ”“ or federal ones ”“ I don”™t know. As for day laborers in general, they do not bother me. People need to work.
What is troubling, though, is that taxpayers are left to foot the bill. Why are they being penalized? It”™s a matter of fairness to all.
This case has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. It also reinforces the urgency to address immigration on the federal level, rather than leaving it up to municipalities and letting the chips fall as they may. We cannot, in our rush to protect illegal immigrants, abandon our own rule of law.
President Bush pitched his plan for immigration reform. I did not read the bill, but I read enough about it to understand why it didn”™t fly. At least he proposed something.
As we watched the bill go gently into that good congressional night, we also got another look at the old blame game in Washington. There was plenty of finger-pointing. There were charges of racism from supporters. Critics missed no opportunity to use the “a” word. Amnesty has a way of sending shivers down even the most moderate spine. And the “f” word was bandied about. (Filibuster, that is.)
In the end, once again, we all suffer.
We can build fences higher and bury our heads deeper, but when the sun rises we will not see daylight ahead.
A bipartisan fix is needed ”“ now.
To borrow, as many do, from the recently deceased historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., we in the United States suffer from “too much pluribus and not enough unum.”
Â
