As an independent voter, for the last several years I've listened intently to all sides in the complex immigration debate. This is an issue with profound implications for the future viability of America's call to the world's tired and poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Does 9/11 render the inscription at Ellis Island an artifact of a bygone era?
All of us know the story.
On September 10th, 2001, the United States carried on with its business-as-usual immigration policy, an informal construct that had worked since the 19th century. That day was, with respect to immigration, a perfect illustration of America's paradox. Without a doubt, hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of illegal aliens streamed across our border with Mexico. Certainly, American employers hired plenty of undocumented workers to take on the menial and physical labor that most Americans won't do. And illegal aliens kept their usual low profile, fearful of the prospect of being deported, but confident they could find their way back to the land of opportunity if circumstances necessitated it.
I'm not trying to characterize illegal immigration as uniquely a problem with our Latin-American neighbors. No doubt, plenty of visiting Europeans and Asians who entered the country with valid visas had them expire that day, making their presence no more legitimate than those making their way across the Rio Grande. The Canada-US border has over sixty access-points that are routinely unguarded, so who knows how many of our northern brethren dropped in that day, or the many days before, without duly reporting to US Border Patrol authorities. However, when we speak of undocumented workers, this is an area speaking distinctly to Mexico and Central America and represents the biggest target of immigration reform.
While almost nobody, neither the undocumented workers, our immigration enforcement officials, nor law-breaking employers played 100% by the rules (both written and unwritten), everyone understood them. And, more or less, everyone benefitted.
The next morning that all changed, with a measure of America's idealism lost (along with almost 3,000 lives) in the process.
In my opinion, like most Americans, on September 10th I considered illegal immigration a low-grade problem, a largely victimless crime and one of the small prices we pay for living in a free society. Heck, as long as those arriving were pulling their weight, working in jobs I didn't want anyway, their presence might be even construed as a Godsend.
While I don't think that way anymore, I also am not as uncompassionate as conservatives and find myself somewhere in the middle. Here's why.
First, let us not forget, that with the exception of Native Americans, our country is a nation of immigrants. Not all of us (including many of my fellow black Americans) came here by choice, but we find ourselves here nonetheless. And most of these immigrants, when given the opportunity and an equal stake, have embraced the notion of working hard to leave their children with a better society than the one they inherited.
Those that come solely to partake in the economic promise of America as undocumented workers are, however, a slightly different breed. The truth is, this labor pool is not leaving their homeland to escape political persecution or freedom to practice religion. It's about money and the improvements in quality-of-life more money affords one, plain and simple. Assimilation, to the resentment of many Americans, doesn't seem to rank high on their agenda.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Capitalism must have an underclass to function, and if some group wants to volunteer for that position, America undoubtedly will find a way to oblige them. However, we have now arrived at an awkward moment in time when two of our most vital societal needs find themselves at cross-purposes. On one hand, our economic engine requires an exploitable labor pool. On the other, in the interest of national security, we need to secure the porous border that labor pool must cross to get here.
The conservative base has pounced on this opportunity to villify that underclass, as though if their estimated 11-20 million disappeared tomorrow, the load would lighten for the rest of us. The social services and healthcare costs, provided at taxpayer expense, along with the crime perpetrated by this underclass on the rest of law-abiding America would vanish overnight. If the nation could erect an electrified version of the border fence which dots portions of our southern landscape, they would argue we can finally get a handle on who's in the country, and sleep better at night because of it.
At the core, this is just a crude attempt to resolve the capitalism/security contradiction by portraying undocumented workers as freeloaders and rabble-rousers, whose costs in social calamity outweigh any profits they help return. What those conservatives overlook is achieving their ideal of no illegal aliens (without a legalized guest-worker program to replace it) is tantamount to the country committing economic hari-kari. By framing such programs as "amnesty", since they incorporate a path to permanent residency (the "equal stake" I spoke of earlier), the conservative base makes it difficult for Republicans to achieve any substantive bi-partisan immigration reform.
Unfortunately, no matter how many capitalists may be hearing the message, they each only get one vote when it comes election time. We've already seen how anti-immigration policies have serious repercussions at the ballot box, with the Hispanic vote representing a key demographic in close national elections.
Personally, when I deconstruct the issue, the complexities give me a headache. I don't find myself influenced by conservative fear-mongering on the misdeeds of undocumented workers, since bad news is the vast majority of what's reported in the mainstream media. Here in Florida, we have a vibrant migrant population that are clearly just searching for a better life, something any American can understand. Nor am I convinced by their arguments which attempt to portray undocumented workers as a drain on social services, since taxes paid by forged document holders into the Social Security System and IRS are in the billions. However, I do appreciate our need to gain stronger control over our southern border and, in that sense, it would be helpful to eliminate some of the motivation for crossing it illegally.
I wouldn't mind seeing a guest-worker program, with no path to permanent residency (nothing stops the US from opening up the green-card allocation for Latin America while having those workers go to the back of the traditional line) coupled with an electronic identification system that cannot be forged. Marry that with strong penalties for those hiring undocumented workers (which means putting more dollars into serious enforcement) and we may start to get a handle on the problem.
I have no doubt the government would find a way to abuse such an electronic system, but I have equal faith in their ability to "get it right" once in place. Without such a system, we have nothing to tweak. The sooner we get started, the sooner we can get a handle how to protect personal privacy and at least pretend like this is the 21st century. Such identification could also double as a domestic passport for air travel, greatly reducing inconveniences that affect hundreds of millions a year because of the actions of 19 terrorists on September 11th.
Of course, removing the incentive for illegal immigration is not the same as securing the border. Since the goals of terrorists are not to get a job once they get here, such measures will not accomplish much with respect to the so-called GWoT. However, once capitalistic motivation for keeping the borders insecure is removed, it opens the way towards getting serious about a project like the border fence, while not betraying the American value of welcoming those in search of a better life.