Nadia Klystov
Re: Nicholas Halks, “On the Right and Never Wrong”
Obesity problem begins where a person eats when he does not need to. The same is true about immigration: it becomes a problem when aliens come uninvited. It is important to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Legal immigrants come mostly because people need them: be it a foreign spouse, need of a business for an employee who has a unique skill, or need of a research center in an internationally renowned scientist to participate in their long-term project. The only category of legal immigrants who come “unwanted” is those who seek asylum or refuge in the U.S., having fled their countries for their lives. For the most part, legal immigrants are a benefit to this country, and they do not live on food stamps or fill emergency rooms with uninsured.
The real problem is illegal immigration. This country did not need these people; they came without invitation. Since they did not go through the legal immigration process, they may bring with them crime, diseases, and hostility. Without legal status, they were unable to get a decent job and support themselves and their families. Their status makes them easier targets for overreaching by the employer and for the criminal world. They create a segment of population of the United States, which operates according to its own laws, not envisioned by the legislature.
It is true that many illegal immigrants are good, hardworking people, from whom the society benefits. For this category of people, there is a waiver under the immigration law, after they’ve lived a long time in the United States showing good moral character, at which point it makes sense to grant them legal status because otherwise their kids will be unjustly punished. But some of them are not good people, and often, it is poverty and illiteracy that makes them such. They barely speak English, and they don’t share American values.
I disagree that immigration is the direct contributor to unemployment. There are always job opportunities even in the days of crisis. The unemployment rates come in large portion from those who have been fired from certain positions but do not want to accept a lower position. If you worked as an analyst at Fidelity and got laid off, you wouldn’t seek a job at Denny’s. Yet it is the lowest jobs that immigrants tend to occupy, unless they are skilled workers and taken to their positions because of their special skills, for which reason that position would not be available to you anyway.
Besides, immigrants not only take but also create jobs: they open up various businesses: restaurants, shops, beauty salons, movie theaters, and other enterprises. It takes a lot of drive to immigrate, and those people do not come here to sit on food stamps; they come to better their lives and the lives of their children, and they are prepared to work hard for success. Plus, the immigration service makes sure that people who cannot support themselves or don’t have a reliable sponsor, don’t get their visas. Thus, the proposition that “America has imported too many immigrants in too short a time period in order to provide healthy employment opportunities to all” is not “undisputed”.
It is true that this country probably takes in too many asylees and refugees, who are entitled to welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and other government help. This is a burden on the economy. If you take them in, you are responsible for their smooth transition to normal life, although this help should be strictly limited. Otherwise, you’d have them in the streets, in ghettos, and engaged in crime. The real question is whether to take them in at all. And here, humanitarian considerations come in, which are not as easy to repeal.
It is easy to think about it from the comfort of your home. Not so, when you weigh the consequences of a decision to deny entry to people who face death or severe persecution in their countries. By denying a family refuge or asylum you may trigger such consequences as death or torture. Denying it to adults, you also deny it to their kids. No one wants to be responsible for a death of a child. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean that the United States should take in all such people, because it just cannot, and its primary responsibility is their own citizens. The government tries to find this very sensitive balance – between lives of these people and the commitment not to harm their own country, and this is by no means an easy endeavor. Thus, the first solution that Nicholas suggests - limiting the flow of immigrants 10 times - is not as easy as it may seem.
The second solution – to build a fence on the Mexican border – is impracticable: the costs of building, maintaining, and guarding it effectively will cost much more than dealing with those who sneak in. Also, they will find a way to come through it, as they have found the way to reach it. The third – “deport all illegal aliens convicted of a crime” – is already being done: we deport illegal immigrants whether or not they have committed crimes, and we deport legal immigrants who have committed crimes. Although sometimes the immigration service is not effective in doing this: again, because of its cost. So they would leave alone “small fish” and hunt for the “big fish” - those convicted of serious crimes.
The third solution - assimilate the immigrants already here – would be great! The problem is, again, the cost! And what is assimilation? Should they change their religion? Should they forget their own language and culture? At minimum, it means they should share American values. But who is going to define the “American values?” And how are you going to promote them - enforce them? How would you measure assimilation? Should an “assimilation” inspector come to your house every once in a while and ask “Have you assimilated yet?” Again, even measuring assimilation would require expenditure, and we are talking the whole country. In sum, my point is - it is nothing but easy to resolve these problems.
Oct 23, 2010
0 comments:
Post a Comment