The Need for Immigration

Extremely interesting article in the April National Geographic about population. Some really excellent data, and thought provoking looks at two countries on opposite ends of the population paradox, Nigeria and China.

For those who may have missed it, Earth is now home to over 8 billion people, that mark having been reached sometime late last year. A remarkable number, considering that our planet's population was around 3.5 billion inhabitants 65 years ago when there were many who thought that we were approaching the limits of being able to feed and shelter our ever expanding global population. Fortunately, advances in agriculture created a "green" revolution that not only countered the more than doubling of our planetary population, but combined with medical and technological advances, increased longevity as well.

Another item you may have missed is that India overtook China as the most populous country on Earth. As the specific piece on China explains, the lowering fertility rate for China as well as the one child policy enacted in the 19070's has resulted in, not only a birth rate below replenishment levels, but a population that is aging dramatically. There are some who are predicting that China's window of opportunity to realize its goal of being the world's greatest economic power, may be closing,  simply because it may not be able to handle all the problems that are associated with having too few workers to support too many elderly folks.

On the other side of the coin, as is true for most of sub-Sahara Africa, Nigeria's population continues to explode, with some predicting that it will become the third most populous country, supplanting the US, in 25 years, or less. Whether Nigeria can feed its burgeoning population is still in doubt, as they already import a huge amount of food as it is.

Is the Big Blue Marble on the verge of reaching peak population during this century, perhaps at just shy of 10 billion? It is a rather bold prediction when one considers that it took humanity all of history up until the first decade of the 1800's to reach 1 billion people, then another 125 years to get to 2 billion, and 32 years or so to reach 3 billion. At that point, we added another billion people in 15 years, and another billion every 12 years since, excluding the 14 years it just took us to reach 8 billion. 

Yet, there is evidence that the arc that tracks our growing population since the early 20th century is getting a bit flatter, more gradual. And, for countries in what many call the industrialized, western world, declining birth rates are already apparent. Italy and Japan are the most extreme examples of this trend, but one of the graphs in the article which depicts fertility rate by country, starkly illustrates that Europe, North America, most of South America, Australia, Russia, and even India and China all have birth rates below replacement levels. Only Africa, parts of Central America and South America, parts of Asia and Indonesia and the Middle East have fertility rates above 2.1 (the replacement rate), and only sub Sahara Africa still has rates above 4. If we assume that as their economies improve, as education levels increase, as access to birth control and family planning methods become more widespread, and, if the migration from rural to cities happens at a pace similar to what has happened everywhere else in the world, even those countries may drop back closer to replacement levels in another half a century.

So, is this a problem?

Some say, considering how strained earth's resources are, or more precisely, how unbalanced the distribution of its resources are, it may be a good thing if population growth eases. Perhaps, once a leveling off occurs, and we address the inequities, a new pattern of growth can emerge, but one where we don't need poorer and low resource countries to encourage 4 or more births per woman knowing that high infant mortality rates will impact that number. Can you imagine, a world where every birth is desired, every life can have some confidence that ample opportunity for attaining the basics of clean water, ample food, shelter and economic opportunity will be provided?

Which, sorry for the delay, brings us to Immigration.

One of the major reasons that a country like China may struggle to maintain its population of workers to support its aging population, is its restrictive immigration policies, both cultural and governmental. Conversely, one of the major advantages that the United States has, is its historically liberal immigration policies, and cultural identity of valuing the melting pot theory label. 

Of course, we have been far from perfect in this area, having enacted many different immigration quotas which restricted targeted foreign populations from coming to America. But, in general, and certainly when compared to most nations, America has been proud to welcome those seeking freedom and economic opportunity. Hey, we even have a statue in New York Harbor which greeted the millions of immigrants who came to our shores in the late 19th and early 20th century. See my ode to Lady Liberty below.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/09/immigration-and-statue-of-liberty.html

Yet, there are those in America today who want to piss away this advantage. Who believe that those who seek refuge from despotic or autocratic regimes, who yearn for freedoms that their birth nations are unable to provide, who prefer to jettison all that they know in terms of culture, traditions, even family and friends to come to America, are not worth having, not worth giving the benefit of the doubt to just as our ancestors were given 100 years ago. 

Its not like we don't have a worker shortage in America, don't face uncertainty in how we are going to pay for our own aging population. A new approach to immigration, one that combines a realization that, while some who come across our borders do so with evil intent, the vast majority come as our ancestors did, looking for a better world for their families. We have the tradition, we just need to silence today's xenophobes, those who cannot see past race and nationality variances. 

I have posted a number of thoughts on this topic in the past. Here are links to 2 of them.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/03/immigration.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/11/immigration.html

I would like to think that if the American people were asked to vote on a new immigration policy, yes or no, the following would pass.

1. Immediate citizenship for those brought illegally as children. I truly don't understand those who prefer to punish children for the sins of their parents, especially when so many of them often state that they should not be punished for the racist policies of their forefathers.

2. A non-judgmental registration process for all illegals which would provide those who comply with path to citizenship which might include military service, or an employment status of 5 years or more, or a clean police record, or any other idea that may come to mind that can be included which proves worthiness. 

3. A more equitable disbursement of those who come across the border so that the southern states are not bearing all the short term expenses. 

4. A commitment to addressing the security concerns of the southern states through better border security and more efficient methods of identifying those who are of criminal intent.

Of course, the devil is in the details, and that is fine. A true reformation of our immigration policies will take some time, but without a consensus as to our direction, it will continue to be a disaster, for those seeking to come here, those already here without documentation, and all of us who can see it isn't working.

And, it will take compromise. But to think that there is not a middle path between an open border and dehumanizing everyone who approaches our southern border, is not only sad, it is a negative reflection of our belief in our ability to solve problems. America is as diverse a country as there is today, possible as diverse as has ever been in history. If diversity is part of the strength that has made us great, why would we not continue to embrace it as a way to forge a better future?

Finally, a link to a story I wrote over 10 years ago in an attempt to convey that yesterday's prejudices always seem petty to us, just as today's prejudices will seem petty to future generations.   

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/04/debate.html

A Refugee Story

Currently reading the Jan/Feb edition of the Smithsonian, and specifically an extremely inspiring story about the Krimml Pass in Austria.

Most people might remember the famous ending scene in The Sound of Music where the von Trapp family leaves the stage one by one which then morphs into their eventual passage over the mountains to freedom. A wonderful story, despite the fact that the real life von Trapps were not Jewish nor did they traverse the Alps. However, a similar trek to freedom was undertaken by thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing Germany (and other countries) via the Krimml Pass. Unlike the more well known Alps crossing areas (Brenner and Reschen passes), the story of this escape route was not well documented or even known outside the small town of Krimml which is located about 90 miles southwest of Salzburg.

What is inspiring about this story is two fold. First, this route was far more dangerous than the more well known routes, but became necessary when those routes were closed to the Bricha guides who had been leading those escaping to freedom. (The Bricha story itself is a wonderful example of people, Jews and non-Jews, who banded together to help those fleeing persecution and I recommend anyone interested in more details of this brave band of heroes research them as well).

The article details one of the men who was tasked with finding this alternate route, Marko Feingold. He is a prime example of a person that history had largely forgotten but who was instrumental in aiding thousands of people in his lifetime, in this case in their attempt to escape death.

Another inspiring revelation in this article is the fact that in 2003 a man named Ernst Loschner, a lifelong resident of Austria in a town not that far from Krimml, was first introduced to the history and importance of the Krimml Pass, a fact that astonished him given his proximity to the home of such an important historical event. Since then, through a group called Alpine Peace Crossing (APC), Loschner has made it his mission to not only remember the people and guides who made those dangerous crossings, but create a mind set that links all past and current refugees, in an attempt to teach the lesson that anyone could find themselves in such a situation.

For instance, and despite some dissenting voices within the Jewoish community, including Feingold, APC had invited Syrian refugees to participate in a crossing. This was controversial for some given that many Muslims are taught that the Jewish nation is their enemy, yet people who may share that belief were being asked to walk the route which saved thousands of Jewish lives. But as Loschner explained, APC is about openness towards all, and that only through inclusion and dialogue can such dangerous prejudices be defeated. The fact that those same Syrian refugees also faced persecution, just as today's Ukrainian refugees are being systematically cleansed by Putin's invasion force, the Ukrainian people being predominantly Christian, delivers the most compelling reason why the message and mission of the APC (and all such global organizations) is so important.

Not to mention, the recent rise in acts of violence, and antisemitic statements being given air on American airwaves, and abroad, let alone the continued promulgation of Holocaust denial articles and essays. 

Which brings me to immigration. 

It continues to amaze me when I hear Americans, many first and second generation Americans, railing against immigrants, illegal and otherwise. Perhaps it is another example of phrasing. If we called all people who were leaving their country refugees, whether it be to escape true persecution or just for a better chance at economic advancement, would that make a difference?

To me, in the end, it is not a big step to take to perceive anyone who wishes to come to America (or any country that features more freedom or economic opportunity) as a refugee. Does it really matter if their state of refugee-ness (I know that is not a word) relates to religious, racial, gender or economic issues? Do we not wish all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference or the luck of the birth lottery, the chance to pursue happiness? Are the words of the Declaration only for Americans? 

I mentioned above that I am amazed at those Americans whose heritage is barely American yet have such prejudice against today's immigrants. But I am also angry at those who insist that their are only against illegal immigrants, as if people truly chasing freedom should have to worry about arbitrary rules that are generally based in prejudice and fear. Immigration quotas by their nature punish those without resource to bypass them, and those without influence to alter them. Not always, but too often, that rationale is a way to hide behind an obvious or hidden bias against "others".

I touched on immigration in the past, and have added a link to three of those posts below. In them, written as far back as 2014, and as recently as last June, I mention some solutions to our immigration problem. But sadly, that is part of the problem itself, that we think we need a solution to an issue which makes it illegal to seek happiness and prosperity in a country other than the one in which we were born, a simple fact that no one has any control over. 

I would like to think that the Creator is not so close minded to think that her creations would have different levels of freedom and opportunity solely based on where she placed them on earth. Perhaps the real challenge of life is demonstrating that birth country, gender, race, sexual preference, or any trait that makes for diversity in our species is an opportunity to glorify the Creator, not restrict other people from seeking freedom and happiness.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/migration.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/03/immigration.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/11/immigration.html      

In the meantime, better woke than asleep.

Migration

As I mentioned in a previous post, I recently finished reading the April/May edition of the Lapham's Quarterly, called Migration.  As is generally the case, the edition expanded my perception of the migration concept, by presenting many articles and essays that did not address human migration, instead discussing animal, and even plant migrations.

Perhaps it is just another indication of the anthropocentric perspective that I have, that most of us have, in that I did not even consider that I would read so many essays detailing migration stories that did not involve humans.  Maybe that in itself, the continued realization (or maybe it is better phrased, the remembering) of the fact that while the human species may be at the top of the food chain at this time in Earth's history, it has only been so for a minuscule percentage of the existence of Earth, should be our constant reminder.  And that should we continue to act as if our survival is all that matters, that without some recognition of the need for harmony with nature, it may come about sooner rather than later that Mother Earth once again is occupied exclusively by plants and animals, not including humans.

Anyway, as is my recent pattern, I reviewed those posts which I titled Immigration, and have provided a link to the three most recent of them although the youngest is already pushing 5 years old.  Here they are:

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/09/immigration-and-statue-of-liberty.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/03/sanctuary-cities.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/09/president-trump-is-right-on-daca-for.html

So, returning to the Lapham's edition, I left bookmarks in a number of places, in hopes of mentioning them either specifically, or in general comments on the magazine as a whole.  Most are migration stories concerning a group of humans, one an excerpt from a book about the subject itself.

For instance, did you know that for the first century, America not only had no laws restricting immigration but openly courted people from around the world to come here for economic opportunity and social freedoms?  That even during the late 19th, early 20th century when the rumblings of xenophobia began to generate political campaigns and nascent laws to label specific peoples as undesirable, the sheer numbers of those crossing the Atlantic, and their ability to establish some level of acceptance through family, kept the serious migration- phobes at bay, at least for those emigrating from countries with people whose race was close enough to those clamoring against the coloring of America, and the invasion of new cultures and traditions.

Or how about the fact that in 1939 the trans Atlantic liner St. Louis left Germany with roughly 930 Jews, all whom traveled with papers that stretched the truth of their real reason for their trip so that they could flee their homeland where they were deemed unwelcome?  And that these people, half of whom were women and children, were repeatedly denied landing in Cuba, despite having official permits allowing them to land there, and the United States, even though most had papers declaring that to be their eventual end point? That they were forced to head back to Europe, despite the money they had paid for those Cuban and US permits, but that during that return trip, many countries witnessed anti-Jewish rallies and speeches, so, after 40 days and 40 nights on the water, various members of the group were grudgingly allowed to disembark in a few different countries where they were treated like all the other Jews of that particular country, depending on its willingness to embrace or fight Hitler's goal of eradicating the Jews.

Or finally, the story of the migration of black doctors to Europe in the decades before the Civil Rights movement in America?  A time when even black veterans from WW2 found in difficult to use their GI Bill money to gain access to US medical schools, instead experiencing a more pleasant experience overseas.

It is this last story, that reminds us that when we endorse restrictive immigration policies, especially those that target specific peoples based on race or religion, we are as much the losers as those we deem unacceptable.  Is it even possible to enumerate all the discoveries and innovations that had helped to propel America towards its current position of influence and power that exist due to the influx of immigrants in the 20th and 21st century?  Will someday historians mark the beginning of America's decline as the time when we turned to nativism and the scapegoating of those that looked or loved or worshiped differently from us, thereby sending that needed dose of new blood, fresh ideas, and a selfless work ethic to other countries? 

My wife and I had visitors this past weekend, and one of the topics was the work ethic of the immigrants, illegal and legal, that we have personally experienced or know of from discussions with other friends.  What was especially interesting is the understanding that those initial immigrants, the first ones of each family to venture from their homeland for better opportunity, are often the ones with the least work skills, but the most work ethic.  The ones who toil for long hours for low pay but who still manage to put enough money aside to send back to their country of origin, and/or, pay for more family to immigrate.  The ones who often work for a few years, then start their own small businesses.  The ones who make sure their children are better educated than themselves.  The ones who live to see that first, and often second generation of Americans, their children and grandchildren, enjoy freedoms, opportunity and even acceptance.  So many American success stories, just like those of our friends and my own family, whose ancestors took a chance on themselves and the ideal that if they worked hard, America would reward them.  

It doesn't matter if the old country is Germany, Italy, Ireland, Mexico, Guatemala, or El Salvador, the pride of those who first emigrated passes down to that first and second generation who now claim America as their native land.  

I wrote a story about 10 years ago called The Debate.   It was futuristic, in that it depicted the controversy surrounding a proposal to legalize a certain type of marriage.  In some ways it is a negative story that reflects the fact that prejudice and xenophobia may be with us far into the future.  But it is also positive, in that it intimates that those tribal forces which compel us to circle the wagons and immediately fear social progress, evolve to include wider and wider swaths of people.  As the fear of the clan on the other side of the mountain became the fear of those who spoke another language, evolved to the fear of those who worshiped a different god, or loved a different way, perhaps someday our prejudices will have a more planetary basis.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/04/debate.html      

Why we need Immigration

Immigration is one of the hot button issues of the day.  Unfortunately, like most "hot button" issues, there are far more partisan opinion and all or nothing perspective, than fact based discussions.  And, even when purportedly non-biased articles appear, there still seems to be a filter through which those articles are processed, a filter effected by politics, self interest, and even race and national allegiance.

So, where to turn for an honest debate about immigration?

Sadly, there is no place on earth for such a debate.  We are all biased in some way, either by our own prejudices, or by our place of residence, or by our economic priorities.  As responsible citizens, we must seek information on this, and any important topic, with an acknowledgment of these biases, and those of whom we watch and listen to on our various media outlets, and, most importantly, be able to separate "facts" and messages which appeal to our emotions from those which appeal to our minds.

Yes, I know, a very tough task.

A simple example, which I have used before, is one of employment.  As a population increases, at any given time, it may be possible to cite a statistic that claims more people are employed than ever in history, and, at the same time, that more people are under employed, or unemployed, that at any time in history.  Both can be true if the population of that country is increasing.  Each statistic can be used, by opposing sides of a debate, to prove the greatness of its side or the failure of the other.  Only the discerning listener knows that neither statistic means anything in and of itself, without other information, especially percentage information, as opposed to an aggregate number.

That being said, I will present my opinion as to whey we need less stringent immigration laws, and an increase of immigration into America.  I will present information and facts to back this opinion, but the reader must remember that I am biased.  My family is only two generations removed from Europe so without immigration I would not be writing this blog from America.  In addition, I have visited the Statue of Liberty, read its words of invitation, hope, and encouragement to the "huddled masses", and believe it is that spirit of acceptance that contributed to America's greatness.  And finally, I seek out and read the stories of today's immigrants and refugees, understand that their desire to come to America, even if it means entering by illegal means, are the same stories that drove my ancestors to this country.  I believe that we are the children and grandchildren of people just like them, and that by rejecting and demonizing them, we reject and demonize our own past.

One of the more compelling arguments against immigration today, is an economic one.  This argument states quite simply that as long as there is a source of cheap labor, employers will be able to suppress wages.  Removing that source, will force employers to pay higher wages.  Further, that it is the business community that supports immigration, legal and illegal, which is why there are so few prosecutions for businesses who hire undocumented workers, while the workers themselves are painted as the problem.

My bias, against big business, makes me open to such arguments as I have a deep seated problem with the power of corporations in America.  It would be easy for me to latch onto this argument and eschew articles which debunk it.

However, over the weekend, I read such an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, business section.  This article presented facts about employment that counter my bias.  Did you know that upwards of 10,000 baby boomers retire every day?  And that this trend will continue for another decade, at least, as the baby boomers, as defined by those born between 1946 and 1964, continue to retire?  America is, statistically speaking, operating around 1% above full employment, where full employment is defined at 3%.  (Current unemployment, nationally, is 3.8%).  In other words, we need more workers, not less.  And, since the birth rate for America has been in decline for decades, despite the higher birth rates of immigrants, it is clear that we will need more immigration, not less, in the near future if we intend to run our businesses, fix our infrastructure and encourage more entrepreneurship.

Now, this information does not necessarily counter the belief that wages will stay low, as it is generally believed that immigrants tend to enter the work force at the bottom of the economic ladder.  However, my family being an example, within a generation or two, a large percentage of those immigrants have children who move up the economic ladder.  This should not be surprising as stories abound concerning immigrant parents (of all nationalities) who sacrifice so their progeny can live better than they did.  Seeking a higher standard of living for one's children exists across all races, cultures, and ethnic origins, and is cited in countless "success" stories by the children and grandchildren of immigrant parents when asked for their inspiration.

The fact that employers seek to pay the least amount of money, whether to legal or undocumented workers transcends generation and position in life, and will continue whether the employer resides in one's community or in the White House.  What is important is that new blood, immigrant blood, refreshes a nation.  It has done so for America for its entire existence, and will continue to do so if we consider immigration in ways which reach beyond our prejudices.

Does that mean open borders?  Of course not.  Just as we prefer to prosecute and incarcerate the small percentage of native born American citizens who pose a threat to society, we need a process to filter out those who intend nefarious activities once they cross our border.  This is a difficult task, as it is difficult to know beforehand, who will respect our laws and who will not.  But is is also true that just because a desperate person crosses into America illegally, it means they will break other laws as well.  The percentage of illegal immigrants who commit serious crime is no more, and depending on what stats you use, even less than the percentage of natural born Americans who commit those crimes.  Undocumented people tend to avoid legal issues, even to the extend of not reporting those who commit crimes against them, for fear of drawing attention to their illegal status. 

If we are to presume that those who risk their lives to come to America, do so for the best intentions, then we must continue to give the majority the benefit of the doubt, and reinforce our belief in them, and their belief in America, by rewarding their good behavior, and, just as importantly, by removing those among them who are not up to the standard which we expect. 

Serious crime is not to be tolerated,  However, just as we presume innocence until proven guilt, we can not pass laws that exclude all peoples from only specific countries because they look or worship differently, or were merely born in a foreign land.  If that had been the case when the Mafia was first exported to the United States, all Italian immigration to America would have been halted, to the detriment of both Italy and America, and the citizens of both countries.

The other article I recently read concerned refugees, specifically those from countries such as El Salvador.  These people are fleeing horrible situations where death or life seem to be the only choices.  That they choose life which includes leaving everything behind to travel hundreds, even a thousand miles for America, should make us proud that our reputation is of such high esteem.  Risking it all, to provide a better life for one's children is one of the most noble motivations, yet I see these very same parents lambasted for risking their lives and those of their children, by people who prefer to reject them out of fear and prejudice rather than to understand their plight.  Talk about sad!  When America purposefully demonizes refugees whose only crime is to be born at the wrong time in the wrong country, it reflects most negatively on our supposed Christian values. 

And, to me, it leads to the continued degradation of our national soul.  When wealth is all we seek, when the yardstick for a family carrying all its belongings to travel a precarious route so as to live in a free country, is whether they are the wrong skin color, or look just like our preconceived notion of a drug dealer or rapist, then America suffers right along with those refugees. 

History is such a great teacher, yet in some ways so predictable as to be ignored by most of us.  People who looked different from us have been feared in America from the very first day a white European encountered the real native Americans.  Every succeeding generation, after first being looked at askance by the residents of their new world, did the very same thing to the next wave of immigrants.  And so, without being able to see our situation from a distance, we accept hateful words which reinforce our prejudices, and pretend that those we prefer to ignore or demonize are somehow different from our own ancestors.  We ignore the hundreds of stories which resemble our own past while repeating the one story of someone who does disservice to his race or nationality as if that person represents them all. 

We need to find a balance in our discussion of immigration, and a plan to treat immigrants and refugees as people who are eager to share and contribute to the greatness of America.  We need this, for economic reasons, but just as much for our spiritual health, especially if how we treat the least among us is used to separate those bound for heaven or hell.



 

President Trump is Right on DACA, for all the wrong reasons

President Trump's recent decision to end the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program (DACA) was met with swift condemnation from the Democrats, lukewarm support from the GOP establishment, and loud applause from his base and those on the far right.  Same old same old.

For me, Trump's decision is the correct one, but for all the wrong reasons.

First, let me be clear when I say that deporting children whose only crime is to have parents who risked everything to cross illegally into our country is cruel, certainly not Christian, and clearly not the action of a nation which aspires to be viewed as the moral standard of the world.

We know we need immigration reform.  We know that, like those who fled Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century, there are millions of people born south of Texas who are fleeing from economic hardship and poverty.  And we know that our borders must be secured to permit entry by the vast majority of people who we should welcome while still identifying and removing those who do not deserve to participate in the opportunities which America can afford.  So why has there been literally zero progress in the past 50 years to reform our immigration laws?

It is politics, pure and simple, inflamed by our natural tendency to distrust people unlike ourselves, the proliferation of garbage news on the internet, the insidious rhetoric spouted daily by politicians and pundits who prefer power and money over truth, and the philosophy of the Grand Old Party in general and Candidate Trump in particular who had convinced enough Americans that people born in Central America can not be trusted.

You see, once you demean someone based solely on their race, country of birth, sexual preference, or any such characteristic, it is hard to go back.  When economic parity is disappearing, it is much easier to point the finger at the immigrant, illegal or otherwise, who has a darker complexion or different facial structure or disparate cultural traditions. 

The fact that those people generally earn the lowest wages doesn't matter, as the real culprit in the growing income disparity are those with the most wealth and resources.  Those same people who donate large sums of money to campaign war chests, who create patriotic sounding organizations with one issue agendas, and who manipulate our legal system by encouraging laws which favor their needs or using the courts to tie up legal challenges by victims who don't have the resources to withstand lengthy hearings and appeals.

When President Obama attempted to spur Congress to create new immigration policy, he was thwarted multiple times by the GOP controlled Senate and House.  Finally, Obama signed an executive order creating DACA, and since then about 800,000 individuals have taken advantage of it. 

Unfortunately, Obama attempted to expand the scope of DACA and these expansions were successfully challenged in court and the changes were struck down.  In the meantime, challenges to the original DACA rules moved through the courts.  It was in the defense of this program that Trump and Attorney General Sessions found themselves at odds with Obama.  

Trump couldn't very well defend DACA in court because he has spent the last two years convincing some Americans that a Wall was one of the solutions to our problems and that once the scourge of illegal immigration was defeated, all would be right with our country.  The fact that upwards of 10% of those "bad hombres" are children, did not enter into his rhetoric, and could not be walked back. Also, Trump couldn't defend DACA, simply because it was Obama's plan.  

Still, despite the obvious politics behind President Trump's DACA decision, the pandering to his base and the clear discrimination against those born in Central America, President Trump is right in demanding that Congress be responsible for immigration reform.  The House and Senate need to do their job, difficult as it may be, and stop hiding behind political aspirations.  By crafting a policy that allows for citizenship for those brought to America as minors, for those who become productive members of America, for those who were foreign born but have raised their children to appreciate and respect the opportunities that America has presented to them, Congress can reform our outdated immigration policies in a bipartisan way that Trump can sign into law.

Remember, America exists today precisely because of the flood of immigrants, from Europe, Asia, Africa and now Mexico and Central America.  The circle of diversity which brings new ideas and energy, which creates proud first and second generation Americans, which allows for tolerance of the next wave of immigrants, separates us from those countries that reject non native born peoples outright, or isolates them in areas within their cities which provide the least opportunity and upward mobility.  People are not crossing illegally into Russia or North Korea for a reason.

And lastly, also remember that had immigration quotas existed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, and had the xenophobic opinions of the day outweighed those with more tolerance, many of us, those who are first, second and third generation Americans might not have been born here.  

Sanctuary Cities

Immigration has been a hot button topic for quite a while, but especially so in light of the anti-illegal immigration rhetoric which contributed to the election of Donald Trump.   Within the vitriolic debates concerning immigration, illegal and otherwise, there is an interesting side bar concerning sanctuary cities.  Sadly, as is so pervasive with media coverage of any topic that is controversial and/or partisan, actual facts are often missing so I thought I might do some research on the topic in an attempt to present some information that may not be widely discerned.

First, what is a sanctuary city?  The most accurate definition that I encountered is that a sanctuary city is one which permits residence by illegal immigrants to help them avoid deportation.  Those that argue against the existence of a sanctuary city will often expand that definition to include the more damaging statement that these cities refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement by allowing felons to roam free and commit violent crimes.

When I hear that more expanded definition, I generally ask why the municipal police and city government officials of a sanctuary city want violent criminals to go free in their cities? Unfortunately, rather than asking that question, many people accept the premise that those (usually liberal/democrats) who govern those cities must hate the citizens of their city, or, even worse, tolerate the crimes of the illegal immigrants in order to gain some kind of political recognition, or perhaps praise from the humanitarian community which is at best, naive, at worst, blind to the evil and violent nature of the illegal immigrant.

If we assume otherwise, that advocates for adopting policies that do not cooperate with federal immigration laws actually do care about those people who live in their jurisdiction, and have reasons not naive or nefarious, then what are those reasons?

First, let's understand the nature of an illegal immigrant.  They are people who have fled their native country, sometime because of a government that is corrupt and insensitive to the needs of its people, sometimes because economic hardship drives them to seek opportunity elsewhere, sometimes to escape violence or civil war.  Some are aware that they might be able to apply for refugee status if they can prove that they qualify, but most either don't understand the nature of government laws that differentiate between refugees and immigrants, or have decided to take the chance of entering the United States illegally rather than continuing to live in a dangerous or poverty stricken environment.

Are there illegal immigrants who prefer to steal to survive in their new country?  Of course, just as there are US born individuals who eschew hard work for the easy way out.  So, again, why would a municipality treat those that commit crimes differently, if they are undocumented rather than US citizens?

Cities with significant illegal immigrant populations defend their actions to provide residence and services to illegal immigrants in an attempt to try to lessen the fear of deportation, so that the undocumented will be more willing to report crimes, get health services or social welfare benefits and enroll their children in school. 

The logic is that, since they are here and are interested in becoming productive citizens, we should encourage them to be "Americanized", so to speak, by incorporating them into the fabric of the community. In this way, they are less likely to resort to crime, more likely to stay out of trouble so that their desire to seek better opportunity and provide such to their children is more likely to be realized.

Of course, addressing the illegal immigration issue is more than just advocating for sanctuary cities or for mass deportation of all those here without documentation.  And, that is the rub, not enough discussion and too few solutions that are neither too far right or too far left.

Perhaps before discussing sanctuary cities or mass deportations, we might move away from the dehumanization of those here illegally and try to understand them as people.  The following information might be helpful.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US

I am not sure that sanctuary cities are the answer, although I clearly do not think that we should "round them up and send them back".  I thought that the DREAM act would have been a good start. It included a host of requirements before granting conditional residency, and targeted young people who were brought to this country illegally by their parents.  But, using Senate rules requiring 60 votes, not just a majority, it was defeated in 2010 by a 55-41 vote (curiously, 4 senators did not vote which I find obscene).  Only 3 of 42 Republican Senators voted in favor (36 against, 3 non-voting), while 50 Democratic Senators voted in favor, 5 against, 1 non-vote.  Both Independent Senators voted in favor.

Some might say that the increase of sanctuary cities is in part due to inaction at the federal level to address illegal immigration.  With (at least) 11 million undocumented people in our country, states and cities have to establish some policies.  In fact, a number of states enacted their own version of the DREAM Act when the no action came from Washington.

At this point, with an estimated 30% of the illegal population having lived in America for over 15 years, with approximately one in three illegal adult immigrants caring for a US born child, with well over 90% of the illegal children in our country attending our schools, it seems foolish, and frankly inhumane to think we can solve this problem through mass deportations.  

But make no mistake, illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, or are recidivist of even petty crimes, should be deported, as was done under both Presidents Bush and Obama.  And, securing the border to limit future crossings should be well funded as it has been since illegal immigration from Mexico and other countries to the south has been. 

Since 2003 the budget for the Border Patrol has increased from just under $6 billion to over $12 billion.  Additionally, employers who avoid paying livable wages by hiring illegals, especially those employers in California, Texas, and Florida which account for almost half of all undocumented workers, should be held accountable for the incentive they provide for future illegal crossings.

In the end, sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants is a people problem. And, like all people problems, only solutions that treat them as people will be successful.  Anything short of that reflects poorly on our country, and our standing in the world as the "shining city on a hill".

Immigration and the Statue of Liberty

It could be said that resentment against foreigners is part of an innate fear of the unknown.  Those who study spousal abuse find that the abused fear what may happen more than what is happening.  When we find ourselves in unfamiliar neighborhoods, we look twice at people we may not even notice if we were in our own environs.  New schools, new jobs, new relationships create stress in our lives.  We seek the familiar, and in that course we prefer our everyday encounters to be with people of similar color or race, religion or beliefs, political perspective, education level, economic status.  It is easier to relate to people like ourselves; conversely, it can create anxiety when we choose to or are forced into situations in which everything is new, and we are the stranger. 

(Quick note here, way to go Rachel, my daughter, who is in Australia for a semester abroad.  Not everyone is as brave or curious to commit to such a long visit away from home.  Perhaps it is a bit easier for young people, but it still requires a paradigm shift in thinking that is admirable, and a bit scary).

Choosing to travel, to live temporarily, or to move permanently to another place, whether for a job or an education, or a lover, is a difficult decision for most people.  Yet, it is still a choice that can be made or not made for most of us.  And, over time, those that move often or adopt travel and the desire to see the world as a hobby, often find their perception of the unknown evolves.  For them, and those who seem born without such a strong innate tendency, the fear of the unknown fades with each experience. 

In the era of forced desegregation, busing of children to other neighborhoods, the mingling of the races in public squares, there was considerable backlash.  Generations of indoctrination about the other race, institutionalized bigotry and fear, is not something that can be legislated away with the stroke of a pen.  Yet now, a mere 50 years later, our kids see other kids, not black kids or white kids.  Those that fall in love with someone of another race have a wedding, not an interracial wedding.  And, believe it or not, there will be a day when those that marry someone of the same gender will also call their union a wedding, not a gay wedding. 

Our constructs can and do change with experience.  We can desensitize ourselves to reacting with fear and mistrust, when we adopt a more inclusive viewpoint. 

It is not hard to find vicious attacks in the media of the time against the immigrants that came to America in the early 20th century.  Derogatory slang names abounded.  Areas of cities were "taken over" by those "people".  Signs in some business windows proclaimed that foreigners (not the word used) need not apply or that their business was not welcome.  The natives of the time who themselves were foreigners to the American Indian a few generations beforehand, were besides themselves with concern that the gene pool would be weakened by these non-English speaking groups.  Complaints that these new Americans would work for less, bred like rabbits, and brought customs and culture that might supplant "American" ideals, were rampant.  They were lazy, drank too much, and were mostly criminals. 

Of course, now, the customs and culture of the Italian, Irish, German, Polish, and other immigrants of that era are weaved intrinsically within our understanding of what makes America.  Eventually, our xenophobia was replaced with the realization that the vast majority of those people came to our shores in hopes of a better life.  We celebrate their contributions to our country and its ideals.

Currently, there is a presidential candidate who has adopted the prejudice that was demonstrated 100 years ago by those objecting to many of our ancestors.  He has demonized those that live south of our border in entirety, claiming that their only purpose in coming to America is crime and mayhem.  He has mined that innate fear of others for political gain, appealing to a base, irrational fear that chooses to be blind to the humanity of those who make the difficult decision to leave behind what is familiar and try a new path.  His ploy is not new, it is rife within the party he is trying to represent.  But he has taken it to a new level of malevolence.  His rhetoric belies the progress we made in eliminating the fear of those whose only goal is to seek freedom and opportunity.

The Statue of Liberty has a few lines from a poem written by Emma Lazarus called The New Colossus.  She wrote the poem, in part, to help raise money for the creation of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty where her lines now reside. 

The full poem is as follows

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Such an ideal!  You may say it runs contrary to common sense, 

"keep ancient lands your storied pomp, give me your tired, your

poor your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".  Certainly 

a different perspective than those offered by Ann Coulter in her 

recent book, and echoed by The Donald.  I assume both 

would consider Lazarus's poem just so much liberal nonsense 

which is ruining America. "Wretched refuse of your teeming 

shore"?  Not on my watch, says Trump.

Immigration, illegal or otherwise is a complex issue.  Sound bites 

will not solve the problem.  One country's immigrant is 

another's refugee, depending on which side of the border you are on.

Xenophobia should not be a policy or campaign platform.  

Merging the ideals of the Statue of Liberty with the practicality of a 

tide of people that strains the country's resources should be the 

basis of our discussion.  If not, then perhaps we should melt 

down Lady Liberty (the Mother of Exiles) and stop pretending that

we are the greatest country on earth.  

Can you imagine how we would handle a real immigration 

crisis like that which is occurring in Europe?  Literally, millions 

of people are fleeing the war torn countries of Syria, Afghanistan, and

Iraq, flowing into Turkey, Greece and other border countries.  Talk 

about your "homeless, tempest-tost"?   Those countries that 

are accepting these refugees must figure out how to shelter them in

extreme weather, provide water, food and sanitation, find 

host families within their country and the rest of Europe, and 

then coordinate travel to those places.  

Those people, whose only crime was to be born in the wrong 

country in the wrong time are looking for a place where 

"..our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning"

As a nation, do we prefer to epitomize the ideals behind The 

New Colossus, do we wish to make concrete a "world-wide welcome"

that Lady Liberty represents?  To say "I lift my lamp beside the

golden door" or are we content to be a nation hiding behind a 

closed gate with a machine gun? 

Immigration

Past readers of my blog know that I began the Winter edition of Lapham's Quarterly, entitled Foreigners, about a month ago.  Today I finished reading it.  In light of the fuss over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I thought it relevant to post about immigration and our current perception of "foreigners".

First, as I have said so often, the Lapham's quarterlies offer a wonderful collection of essays and perspective on a given topic.  In this edition, comments about foreigners from the vantage point of encounters, customs and hostilities were presented.  Additionally, as history is so often written by the victors, Lapham's attempts to bring light to those whose side did not win the day.  An essay from the perspective of an Indian during the century of their losing their birthright, thoughts from a woman on trial for daring to vote, or the point of view of any of the countless (and usually nameless) victims of the various land, resource, and power grabs that occurred over the centuries by those who conquered  "new" lands to the detriment of those who already lived there. 

Second, compilations like Laphams reminds us that we are all descended from immigrants, and that the majority of those outraged by the influx of immigrants today, are the progeny of immigrants similarly degraded and spat upon yesterday, who themselves were considered as foreigners by those who resided in the land when they first arrived.  Unfortunately, rather than treating those that migrate today as we would have liked to be treated, we tend to view them with suspicion and fear.

And, as understanding promotes tolerance and acceptance, fear promotes intolerance and rejection.

So it appears that despite the great strides mankind has made in our perception of those different from us, we experience situations like that which transpired in the United States Congress this past week.
On one side is a party who feeds the fear and biases of its base who have been told over and over again about the evils of those from a different country, or who believe in a different religion.  A party which is supported by a media outlet that blithely declares we are involved in a religious war.  A mindset that labels everything they disagree with as unpatriotic or anti-American, even when an opinion contrary to theirs is presented by other Americans, especially when that American is a president that they despise. 

"How can we face those who voted for us in November", began a current US Senator, "those who voted for us to fight the recent executive decisions on immigration by the president, when we have failed to overturn those decisions".  Perhaps the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania should have explained to his constituents, those whose fears he chose to inflame rather than calm, that actually removing the 10 million or more illegal immigrants from our country is not only not possible but will require huge sums of money to even attempt.  That the president's decision to act unilaterally was necessary precisely because Congress prefers to ignore the facts of the situation, preferring instead to get elected by pandering to an electorate that loves to rail against an overreaching government but fails to see that it would take an even more intrusive government to root out and find the 3% of our population that is here without documentation.  That the best way to make Americans out of those without validity, is to include them in the benefits of America, not exclude them simply because they were born on the wrong side of an arbitrary national border.

But I digress.

What is truly funny (in a sad way) is that in the battle for funding for DHS, the fear of ISIS was stronger that the fear of illegal immigrants, so republicans were forced to backtrack from their plan to allow funding to expire unless Obama's executive decisions were overturned.  It makes one wonder if those at Fox who have elevated ISIS to the level of a global threat to our very existence, realize how that hype contributed to the failure of the republicans to overturn the president's executive orders.  It also makes one wonder when the next "most evil" group will be presented to us by Fox so that ISIS can be dropped down a notch or two.

Who knows, maybe Fox will turn its spotlight of righteousness onto the employers who hire all the illegals, thereby giving them a reason to cross the border, and, just coincidentally, allowing those employers to save on labor expenses and avoid paying certain taxes.

In the end, let us hope that intelligent compilations like that which I have just read, attempts to bring sanity to the topic of foreigners, immigrants, and those different from us, will lead us to realize that being a native or a foreigner is all a matter of geography.  And that if we would want to be treated with respect when we find ourselves out of country or out of our element, perhaps we should do the same for those who enter our own domain. 
 

Immigration

I continue to be popular in Norway; 400 hits in the past week, more than from any other country by far.  No specific post is being hit more than others, and those being hit do not seem to have any common theme.  Not sure if America's immigration woes are shared with Norway, but I welcome any comments from a Norwegian if interested.

Before delving into the current immigration debate, I want to review the recent election results.  Clearly, the American people sent a clear message to the president and the democrats that they are not happy with the current state of the union.  With the stock market at record territory, unemployment back to pre-recession levels, GDP growth at its highest since 2004-2005, and very little loss of American life in overseas wars, its no wonder that the electorate is prime for a change.

Oh, that's right.  None of this news is broadcast on Fox channels.  Even Fox business news with Lou Dobbs glances over the actual state of business and talks politics and how bad the Obama Administration is handling, name your topic.  Crime is down, especially violent crime, yet we are told to be fearful on a daily basis.  More people have health insurance now, yet the Affordable Care Act is ruining America. 

The one true number that is troubling Americans, is take home pay.  While the top 1% has seen tremendous growth in their spending power, share of income, and actual wealth, the middle class has not yet felt that surge in spending power.  In real dollars, the average worker has barely kept even with inflation, if at all.  Fortunately, gas prices in specific, and energy prices in general have decreased - when they were up, Obama was blamed on FOX, but I guess that is a one-way street for them - but sadly, sales for trucks and cars with low mpg ratings have begun to rise -  Ugh. 

Fortunately, the GOP has many proposals in the pipeline to address low pay for Americans.  Debates about income inequality, minimum wage increases, equal pay for equal work are all hallmarks of the GOP economic platform, which is why they increased their majority in Washington, as well as in many states.  What, you say, they are against all those measures?  Well, then surely, a drive to limit tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and corporations must be at the top of their agenda?  After all, when the wealthiest pay less, the rest of us have to pay more.  No, they are against those measures too?  So, what you are saying is that the one area where our economy is lagging, take home pay for the average worker, is the exact area where the newly elected majority has worked the hardest to keep the status quo, and to enhance the position of those with the most.  Hmm. 

Which brings us to immigration.  (Sorry it took so long).  The president has promised to use executive action to change immigration law in this country.  Understandably, the GOP controlled House and soon to be Senate are apoplectic.   The fact that a bipartisan immigration reform measure passed the Senate but died in the House doesn't seem to matter.  However, I do agree that the president should not act alone in this important area, just as I agree that the president should not be able to wage war without Congressional approval.  The problem is, since Obama is evil and everything he does, thinks and proposes reflects his hatred of America, the GOP has no other option but to either disagree with him, or do nothing when they agree, as you can't agree with the views of someone as vile as they have portrayed him. 

Common sense dictates that you can't round up the 11 million illegal immigrants now in America without creating some kind of paramilitary organization that would supersede local and state police jurisdiction, and most likely violate the fourth amendment regarding unlawful search and seizures.  Common sense also dictates that people who came to the United States illegally, should not be granted citizenship just because they are here now.  Therefore, it seems prudent for the president to stay within the boundaries of these two common sense tenants.  Remove the threat of deportation for those who have not committed a crime other than illegal entry while continuing to deport those deemed undesirable.  Make some type of registration necessary to avoid deportation, which should not only give the registrants some peace of mind, but help us track down those employers who have taken advantage of illegals via poor working conditions and meager pay while also circumventing their requirement to pay the appropriate taxes for these workers (or hire Americans).  Grant citizenship to those born in America (the Dream Act or some new version of it) but whose parents are illegal.  And, budget an agreeable increase in securing the border, via a larger barrier, more patrols, etc so that those attempting entry in the future are less apt to succeed.

Is this a perfect plan?  No.  Will it keep out all illegals forever?  No.  But is does give those here already, a chance to emerge from hiding, pay taxes, and participate in some of the advantages of America, without granting them citizenship which would reward their crime.  It also throws a bone to the far right in terms of making a better effort to close our borders more tightly.  And, if Obama is smart, he will make his executive order law only if nothing is passed in the House and Senate within a certain time table, say 6 months to a year.  The good news is that an executive order will movre the debate forward, allow the GOP to create their own bill, and give the American public some type of evidence that the GOP and the president can act as adults in attempting to resolve the issue.

Finally, for those of you unfamiliar with executive orders, feel free to click on the following link

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

It will show you a summary of the presidents and the executive orders they have signed since Hoover.  You will notice that Obama has signed just under 200 such orders, Bush 2 just under 300 in his two terms.  Bush 1 and Ford were low instance users.  Reagan signed about twice as many as Obama, Hoover and Truman signed almost 1000 each, and Franklin Roosevelt was the king of the executive order signing over 3400 in his 3+ terms.  I would suggest that perhaps those arguing the loudest against Obama's use of the executive order should propose a law limiting or making illegal such orders but even the GOP is not that shortsighted in knowing that when a future Republican is elected president, they would not want to limit his/her power.        


 

Arizona and Immigration

I don't live in Arizona nor do I live in any border states where illegal immigration is an issue. I think that is something that people commenting on this issue should divulge before they comment on it. This is not to say that people who are not experiencing the direct problem should not have an opinion or should not have the right to express it, but I do think that it is important that full disclosure should be maintained when opinions are expressed. Since immigration is supposed to be the topic of this blog, I will only say one more thing about disclosure; perhaps if there was more disclosure by our politicians as to how they are making their living outside of the halls of Congress and more disclosure by some of our more vocal pundits as to how profitable and rich their opinions are making them, and where this profit is coming from, perhaps both their various stances on certain legislation and perceptions about certain topics would be better understood. More later.

Anyone who has been following the news recently is aware of a new law in Arizona that allows law enforcement personnel to ask for proof of citizenship from anyone they think might be illegally staying in this country. Since this law was created by Arizona, most people would understand this to mean that people of Mexican heritage are the main targets of the law. I don't think they are looking to apply it to Canadians. Unfortunately, Arizona is home to a large percentage of Mexican Americans, and other people of a skin color that is not white. While I saw the governor of Arizona say that there would be some type of training provided for those attempting to enforce the law, I have to think that this training will have to center on HOW ask for the proper papers as opposed to whom to ask. It is a shame that many police officers in Arizona will now find their already difficult job made more difficult as they try to guess who is legal and who isn't.

So, how do you ask an American citizen to provide proof of their citizenship because they happen to look like an illegal immigrant? Since I not only do not live in Arizona but would probably not be mistaken for Mexican, I can't imagine how this would work. Nor can I imagine how I would feel if the next time I was in my local Burger King using their free Internet, a police officer asked me to prove I was not downloading pornography because a significant percentage of white males in this country engage in that activity. OK, so maybe not a good analogy. How about this one? It seems to be the same conservative, right leaning people that are currently demonstrating in the streets against the government's forays into our private lives are OK with that same government using a guilty until proven innocence approach to the immigration issue. The same people who paint a Hitler mustache on our president our OK with Arizona utilizing a technique right out of the Nazi playbook. (Imagine here a German soldier asking for your papers in any of those WWII allied resistance movies).

America used to be proud of its melting pot status. You know, give me your poor, your tired huddled masses... It is on the Statue of Liberty. So often I hear people say that proof of America's greatness is the fact that so many people want to come here. So, do we want them to come or not? The fact is, we are all immigrants to this country at some point in our genealogy. (My apologies to any American Indians who might be reading this, present company excepted for you). When our ancestors came here, whether 2, 5 or 10 generations ago, chances are they were not welcomed by those already here. Yes, I know they all mostly came over legally on a boat. But they were as desperate and anxious to start a new life as those who come across the border now. If you don't think that in that desperation and hope that some of our ancestors might not have taken a short cut if they could have walked here, you might want to think again. Just like some of our ancestors came to America and caused trouble (I am of Italian ancestry so I can say Mafia here), some of today's immigrants are trouble makers and should be returned from whence them came. But, just like the vast majority of our ancestors came to this country for the right reasons, so do most of today's immigrants come to America. To better their lives and to establish a better life for their children.

Perhaps someone can help me here. When a person is arrested, don't the police have an ability to determine if that person is a citizen or not? Doesn't the "processing" of a suspect include checking for priors (like on Barney Miller), and fingerprinting them. Don't they ask for a social security number? I would like to think that something is done at that point that would establish that this person is not a citizen. If so, then couldn't that be the beginning of the process of deportation? Again, perhaps I am oversimplifying the process, but I am looking for something that upholds our tradition (and constitution) that says innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until papers provided.