.
The other night (8-24-11) on the PBS news I watched a discussion of the new Alabama law on immigration. Among other things the law provides for school systems to require public school students to verify that they have legal status. The opposition to the law was represented by Mary Bauer of the Southern Poverty Law Center. She seemed to not be aware of any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Her main points against the Alabama law was that it is “extreme” and “radical” and “very extreme” and “anti-immigrant” and “controversial” and “contains incredibly extreme radical provisions”.
.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For many years I thought that debate participants who made no distinction between immigrants and illegal immigrants were simply guilty of an intentionally dishonest argument. I have come to believe that, in the past, I was unfair to those individuals or groups and that they honestly believe that the legal/illegal status is not germane to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteIn certain circumstances I have to agree. If a person is in need of emergency medical attention, is malnourished, is in imminent danger, or does not have basic shelter or clothing I would, as a human compassion issue, what to make the necessary resources available to provide relief regardless of their immigration status.
Beyond the basic human needs level I believe that the legal/illegal status is not only appropriate, but an essential component of the discussion. I cannot over stress the importance that I attach to schools and education; still I would not put them in the basic human needs category.
I see this as problematic. If I have the schools discussion with someone who makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants it may be naive to expect positive results. If prior to the schools discussion I first have the “is immigration status pertinent” it may be equally naive to expect positive results.
I think that I agree with you and perhaps you should participate in the Americanselect discussion on this subject. You could certainly add some clarity to that discussion.
ReplyDeleteOn second thought why not specify the criteria by which you would determine whether legal status was significant and write a post on that.
ReplyDeleteI accept your challenge sir. BTW I did take a look at the Americanselect site and found that their discussion page is “coming this fall”. Is there another discussion group by that name that I am not aware of – oops - I mean of which I am not aware?
ReplyDeleteWhen Immigration Status is Important?
ReplyDeleteOn August 29th YA invited me to clarify my thoughts on when immigration status should be part of a discussion and by implication a factor in decision making.
First let me state that I realize that the question of when and why are not the same, however, I will proceed based on the premise that the two are inseparable for this discussion.
In my post on August 29th I allowed an unqualified exemption of immigration status considerations for emergency situations. I have no logical defense for this exemption other that I think it is the right thing to do so I will stick with it.
The rest of my comments will apply to situations other that emergencies or life safety situations.
Equitable access to “common resources” – Because we have been fortunate enough to grow up in a relatively a stable political environment we are not always consciously thinking of ourselves as members of various government units. Such as city, county, school district, state, and federal. Yet we are members of these units, which, for the most part, were primarily conceived and put in place to provide “common resources” to their members. Resources such as streets, schools, clean water, law enforcement, building codes, and hundreds of others fit in the category of “common resources”.
And that is the heart of the issue. If a person is in the country illegally what access to “common resources” is equitable to both the illegal immigrant and to legal citizens? And that suggests my answer to YA’s challenge.
In my option, Immigration status is pertinent to any discussion that involves a goal of establishing equitable access to “common resources”.
If I reduce the scope of my discussion to a level where we can relate personally it helps clarify the thought process. Assume that your Home Owners Association provides a pool (a common resource) and local youths from outside the community climb the fence, making their status in the pool area unauthorized, and use the pool. The youths pay sales taxes and through their rent they pay property taxes all of which help support the infrastructure (streets, water supply, electrical grid, etc.) that your pool requires. Still, they have not made the same level of contribution to the purchase and maintenance of the pool as the HOA members. Do they, as non HOA members, have a claim to the use of this “common resource”? And if they do is their claim equal to that of the HOA members?
If the pool is usually vacant your HOA might says it’s hot let them swim. If the pool is normally full the HOA might insist on members only.
Now in the scenario above replace fence with border and pool with Public schools. My point remains that immigration status indicates, in a general but real way, the level of contribution to “common resources”. So, in my opinion the membership status of all groups involved is pertinent to the discussion if we wish to achieve, or at least pursue, a goal of equitable access to “common resources”.
Obviously I believe that access should have a reasonable relationship to contributions. I make no apology for this position.
p.s. Since we began the discussion using the term illegal immigrant, which by implication admits that a law has been broken, I have made no comments regarding rule of law issues.
After a likely embarrassingly brief scan of this discussion, it seems that the discussion is weighted on behalf of the value of the educational systems benefit to the immigrant. An interesting comparison of the upkeep of inhabitants of prisons to the cost of sending them to college has always been curiously relevant to society's interest in the cost of these individuals.
ReplyDeleteThe children of illegal immigrants represent a cost to society both when they are present in the educational system and when they are not. Like the prison example, one can argue that the cost may be much less if they are in our educational system than if they are not. This is not an attempt to justify illegal immigrants on my part since I believe that their presence is promoted significantly by corrupt public officials.
Michael-
ReplyDeleteI think cost benefit analysis is good idea.
But what two costs to the US are you comparing?
1) Having them in school in the US
vs
2) ?? in prison ??
I would think that the second choice should be
2) Having them in school in their own country.
How much would that cost the US?
No, the prison reference was just an analogy. These young people, as minors, are not lawbreakers in general.
ReplyDeleteObviously it would be best if they did return to their parents country, but there has been little appetite for deportation except for criminal offenders. Therefore the main body of children of illegal immigrant are individuals who are going to be here as long as their parents are under status quo conditions.
The cost benefit analysis then is a comparison of the cost to society of having several million de facto residents of the country who are idle, being too young to work, and not part of the system in general (very similar to dropouts without employment prospects unless older), versus having them in our system for managing school age children which has the benefit of assimilating them into society in a relatively positive manner.
1. Would their parents stay here if the children could not go to school? That seems very insulting of those "immigrants". If I were a liberal I would call it racist.
ReplyDelete2. If we enforced the law that required legal status to work here, then they would self-deport.
3. Some courts say that states cannot make laws of this nature because it is a federal matter. Yet they do not order the federal government to enforce the laws. Sometimes courts feel like they have the power to order governments to do things and some times they don't. It is almost mystical.
Interesting quote that seems timely and pertinent to this discusion:
ReplyDelete“He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”
Second grievance from The Declaration of Independence.