Guest Commentary

Guest Commentary: A nation of immigrants

This year, many state legislatures took it upon themselves to pass laws cracking down on illegal immigration. Utah, sometimes called the most conservative state in the nation, leads the way by passing a comprehensive reform along with a crackdown on illegal immigration. Both of Utah’s laws are now being argued in court. Even Gov. Rick Perry held a special legislative session calling for the passage of what became known as the “sanctuary cities” bill.

In June, Alabama signed into law what some call the harshest immigration law in the nation. In Alabama, tension, fear and racism have erupted into a crisis.

Arizona, Georgia and Utah have all passed similar laws allowing police officers to ask someone their immigration status. But while many of their most controversial provisions were blocked by court orders, Alabama’s has been upheld.

What Alabama legislators could not have foreseen was the devastating effect the law would have on the agricultural sector of its state. Fields are going unharvested, children are disappearing from schools, and residents will now have to prove their citizenship to receive basic water utilities.

This law should come as a shock to the rest of the nation. It requires schools to collect the migratory statuses of students, makes it illegal for undocumented people to do business with the state, and allows the police to ask individuals their immigration status while detaining them indefinitely without bonds. These laws systematically target anyone who isn’t white.

If one removes the humane aspect of it all and merely looks at the numbers, it is impossible to say that it is more cost effective to deport someone rather than offer them a pathway to citizenship.

It costs roughly $12,500 tax dollars to deport one undocumented immigrant. The government has to detain, hold, feed, and deport them. These costs add up. The circuit judge’s refusal to block the most controversial aspects of Alabama’s law only perpetuates their crisis.

Parents living in fear have been driven further into the shadows. They have even been flocking to lawyers to grant legal authority over children and property to others in case they get detained or deported. Many have decided to stay at home; others are packing up and moving to other states.

In an article from America’s Voice, one undocumented mother in Alabama summed up the dilemma: “If it was just me and I got deported, well, I’d have to go back (to Mexico). But what future can I hope to give my son in Mexico, with so much violence and so much poverty? It’s complicated.”

In order to fix the problem of illegal immigration as a country, we must pass comprehensive immigration reform, and stop enforcing these controversial laws.

We must also open a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who could make valuable contributions to our nation if allowed to work here legally.

We should also reform current sponsorship laws to include same-sex couples and pass the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, which does not grant in-state tuition, as many people seem to think — that is a right reserved for the states.

As we look to the future, we must remember that we are a nation of immigrants, and thus, we must treat new immigrants, documented or undocumented, with the same respect and dignity that our ancestors were met with.

Alejandro Caballero is a creative writing junior and may be reached at [email protected].

 

49 Comments

      • >Wow what a racist comment about his name. These topics surely do bring out the bigoted nuts

        You're confusing implication of bias with racism. Not quite as stupid, but still pretty bad.

        • I'm not confusing anything. Yes it is biased and YES it comes off as racist when you equate someone who has an obviously Hispanic name with defending illegal aliens.

          • Oh Lord, I fear for the future. Tyler, he was pointing out the fact that there is a very obvious bias by the author. That is not racism. If he said "This F***in b**ner is pandering to those d**n illegals" that would be racist. He did not say that.

            But, if you are going to accuse him on the basis that he should be discredited because of his 'racism' then you too must be discredited for your post: 'By the way I find it "surprising" that someone with a name like "Peter Henry" would make such a statement.'

            Let's try and be somewhat intelligent, or at least set the bar standard for us all.

            • Mary for your information sweetheart, I was tryin to further my point by doing the same he did. Think a little harder next time.

              • >Mary for your information sweetheart, I was tryin to further my point by doing the same he did. Think a little harder next time.

                And that's sexist. See, I don't think you're getting it.

                • I don't think YOU'RE getting it. This article is based on the author's opinion. By using his name to say "oh of course he will defend illegals because his name is hispanic." That is racist and that is what you are not understanding for some odd reason.

                  • > By using his name to say "oh of course he will defend illegals because his name is hispanic." That is racist and that is what you are not understanding for some odd reason.
                    So if he used a different name that would be okay? Someone is racist simply because of their name now?

                    And it's sexist for you to refer to me in such crass terms. It's a double standard you see. It only discredits you, your position, and everyone who agrees with you.

            • And I have sympathy for those stuck in the past. Mary, you guys are equating the author's ethnicity with his position. That is obvious racism.

              • Pointing out journalistic bias is not racism.

                On a more on topic note, I do find it interesting that those with little understanding of the issues are the first to cry racism. Read some of the below comments and see what you think.

                • Keep in mind it is an editorial and it is his OPINION. Now you tell me how his NAME is evidence of journalistic bias? That is the problem that I have with understanding your argument.

              • Tyler, maybe I can put this in perspective for you:

                The people you are disagreeing with (who I also disagree with, but not because 'they are racist') are saying "The law applies to everyone."

                You are saying that "The law shouldn't apply to brown people."

                One of these cases is making race a part of their argument. The other is not. I'll give you one guess as to which is racist.

                You're never going to get anywhere by sticking your fingers in your ears and insisting your opponent is a doody head; doubly so if your insult is an actual and serious accusation (as opposed to just name-calling). The key is to understand their point, analyze it, respond to it with evidence. Saying "you're a racist" because you disagree with me is juvenile and unproductive. In fact, it ultimately hurts your cause – because I'll be honest, even if I agreed with you and you called me a racist I would go pretty far out of my way to avoid associating myself with you. That's not because I *am* a racist, but because I strongly believe that race is irrelevant in society: everyone should be treated equally under the law, regardless of their physical appearance.

                • I said nothing of the kind. I am only asking why his name implies bias. Please don't put words in my mouth.

    • So what you are saying is that if someone with the name "John Smith" had written this, it would have more credibility?

  • There are two things here: The idiot progressive movement is trying to paint conservatives as racist. You're never, ever, ever going to get the law changed that way. I promise. For two reasons: one, enforcing the law is not 'racist' and two, accusing your opponents of racism is just a quick way to guarantee they will never consider your position. As an added bonus, the idea that somehow hispanic immigrants deserve special treatment where Asian, African, European, etc immigrants do not *is* actually racist. It's about nine-trillion times harder to illegally emigrate from China as it is from Mexico. Why is a brown-skinned person worth more than a yellow-skinned person? Because they have a powerful political constituency in the US? Oh, you mean like sourthern racists did in the 60's. The point is: rethink your terminology before you argue yourself out of the debate. I have zero interest in hearing from extremists who won't consider the other side's position, and labeling the other side 'racist' defines extremism.

    The second thing is this: the idea that *The United States of America* is trying to ban immigration is idiotic. This country was founded by immigrants, of immigrants and for immigrants. The focus should be on eliminating the asinine immigration control laws, which deny those that *want to be here* the rights they deserve. America isn't a "Americans only club" – it belongs not to citizens of the United States but to those who 'yearn to breathe free.' Americans have that yearning, as do many Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, etc. They all *want* to be here. What better possible citizen is there? You're telling me that these people, who have the wherewithal to pack up their entire lives and families, make an arduous journey to a country where everything and everyone is foreign to them, and tackle the challenges of that new environment *aren't* going to contribute? How many Americans (regardless of race) are happy to sit back in a desk job and never push the envelope? The point isn't to say "immigrant X deserves it more than American Y" the point is that the fact that immigrant X was born in Overthereistan doesn't mean he deserves it less. Everyone, and I mean everyone is welcome in this country. Locking the doors for any reason (and especially one as arbitrary as 'because we said so') is stupid, injurious to the future of our country, and morally bankrupt.

  • Mr. Caballero says, "We must also open a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who could make valuable contributions to our nation if allowed to work here legally."

    Worldwide, over 2 billion people have expressed the desire and intent to move to America. If America admits all of them, would that satisfy you? Please tell us why you think the current admission rate of more than a million every year is not enough? Please tell us why you think people who deliberately disobey the law are more deserving of citizenship than those who do obey the law?

  • My wife is a legal immigrant from Guatemala and my children are Americans of mixed ethnicity but using the writers logic I must be a racist because I want illegals deported as soon as possible and heavy fines for employing them. But I really think our government supports open borders and is turning on it's own citizens to accomplish it's goals.

  • Deport all illegal alien squatters in tthe United States. Do it cheaply with subsistance food and shelter only as necessary Do it by bus to the border and dump them. Bill their government for the transportation to the border. They got here OK, its up to them to get home. Not our problem. Only our problem to get rid of them.

  • Deport all illegal alien squatters in tthe United States. Do it cheaply with subsistance food and shelter only as necessary Do it by bus to the border and dump them. Bill their government for the transportation to the border. They got here OK, its up to them to get home. Not our problem. Only our problem to get rid of them.

    • you are forgetting these people are human beings. Regardless of their nationality, we should never think the way you do. Have you stopped to think about what the rest of the world would think about America if we were to actually do that?

      and not only that, but also I'm sure the rest of the world i.e. the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
      Just because you dont want them in the country gives you the right to take away their basic human rights

    • What should we do with those who came from a contry other than Canada or Mexico? how would you drive a bus to, say, Ethiopia??

  • What part of illegal does this author not understand? America has no issue with immigration but we the people do have problems with people, no matter what race, sex or creed, breaking laws that we and other abide by.

    • What laws do you abide by? "not crossing the boarder to get an education/job" You already live in the US. In their shoes you would do the same thing, given the opportunity. and PROBABLY the author, like I do, thinks the law is in need of change and is adressing the issue to promote a change of what is "legal." What is legal today is obviously not working out.
      And don't even utter a word about us Americans not caring about race, sex, or creed. These are the main factors that dictate our policies.
      Thank you Alejandro for your voice! It's people like you who will make the difference needed for this country.

  • What part of illegal does this author not understand? America has no issue with immigration but we the people do have problems with people, no matter what race, sex or creed, breaking laws that we and other abide by.

      • Citizens of Mexico are Mexicans, yes? Citizens of Brazil are Brazilians, yes? Citizens of Canada, Canadians, yes? So what do you call a citizen of the United States of America? Last time I checked, citizens of the USA are referred to as Americans. As such, it is common to refer to the USA as "America" since that is where Americans live.

        But regardless, why the indignation over the term "America"? Is there something I'm missing (and if there is, I honestly mean no offense)?

        • I'm not disputing what you have just stated. I'm merely point out the fact that one person cannot speak for a whole nation, much less the whole Western hemisphere when he states "America has no issue with immigration but we the people…." when it is clear that there are immigration issues.

      • Love the pointless and snarky comment. Proves you have no real argument. But for a minute of humor. If you are referring to all then the plural Americas would be what is used. AMERICA singular is used in referencing my nation (I can't speak for you).

        • And you had a real argument? No, that was your opinion. Loosely throwing around the word "we" as if you speak for a whole nation. That was snarky. You can't speak for me? Hilarious. This is as much my nation as it is yours.

  • What part of illegal does this author not understand? America has no issue with immigration but we the people do have problems with people, no matter what race, sex or creed, breaking laws that we and other abide by.

  • What part of illegal does this author not understand? America has no issue with immigration but we the people do have problems with people, no matter what race, sex or creed, breaking laws that we and other abide by.

    • The part that reffers to complicity and proporcionallity. While AMERICA lures immigrants (both legal AND ILLEGAL) into our nation, loud voices blame them for all our problems. AMERICA welcomes the workforce that illegal aliens bring to this country (complicity). Nevertheless, SOME Americans -specially low educated, low skilled- want to sent them back without a word being said under the argument that they would do their jobs "for a fair wage". Well, picking up crops, cleaning hotels, caring for children, working construction at 100 degrees pays the illegal aliens THE FAIR WAGE. But no AMERICAN is willing to do those jobs. We want them out, but we also want tomatoes @ USD 0,69 (proporcionallity). Get real, a Comprehensive immigration reform its not for you to like it, is the only solution

  • May I point out that after reading this article, the author did not say that "brown" people deserve better treatment. The laws that were passed in Alabama & Arizona simply are targeted toward someone that isn't white. Who are these officers going to question about their citizenship? Certainly not a person with fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. It legalizes racial profiling. It is insulting to those citizens that do not fit this description to be questioned whether or not they are in the US legally.

    And just because my name is Adriana, doesn't mean that I am screaming for all illegal immigrants to be granted residency or citizenship. I do not condone any law breaking of any kind and not everyone should become a citizen. However, I do agree that there has to be something done about this issue. The DREAM act seems to be the more sensible to me. The majority of illegal students came to this country at a young age, we cannot blame them for the decision that an adult made for them. Many of those students don't know anything else BUT this country, this culture, and this language. Deporting them would be unjust. We must come up with medium solution, taking into account the repercussions of both extremes.

  • May I point out that after reading this article, the author did not say that "brown" people deserve better treatment. The laws that were passed in Alabama & Arizona simply are targeted toward someone that isn't white. Who are these officers going to question about their citizenship? Certainly not a person with fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. It legalizes racial profiling. It is insulting to those citizens that do not fit this description to be questioned whether or not they are in the US legally.

    And just because my name is Adriana, doesn't mean that I am screaming for all illegal immigrants to be granted residency or citizenship. I do not condone any law breaking of any kind and not everyone should become a citizen. However, I do agree that there has to be something done about this issue. The DREAM act seems to be the more sensible to me. The majority of illegal students came to this country at a young age, we cannot blame them for the decision that an adult made for them. Many of those students don't know anything else BUT this country, this culture, and this language. Deporting them would be unjust. We must come up with medium solution, taking into account the repercussions of both extremes.

  • Just letting y'all know, illegals are here to stay whether you want them or not. Illegals = profit and in this capitalistic nation, money trumps all. Just look at what happened during the Texas legislative session. Republicans put in a bill banning sanctuary cities and once Charles butt (founder of heb) and bob Perry (founder of Perry homes) found out, they threatened to cut off funding for reelection campaigns.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/28/sanctua

    Instead of ostracizing us as a race, we need to gather our resources and make education a priority so that the children of illegal immigrants can contribute to the country in a positive manner. Sorry but you will never win because the inherent capitalistic political system fosters corruption.

  • As we all know, illegals are upstanding, misunderstood uninvited, guests who never steal, import drugs, lie or run away from the police. They are misunderstood, hardworking, desperate, woebegotten unfortunates who deserve our deepest gratitude and sympathy. Have I left anything out?

  • As we all know, illegals are upstanding, misunderstood uninvited, guests who never steal, import drugs, lie or run away from the police. They are misunderstood, hardworking, desperate, woebegotten unfortunates who deserve our deepest gratitude and sympathy. Have I left anything out?

  • How do these supporters not understand what illegal means. What are arguing Colvin? that because they don't commit some crimes their other crimes should be forgotten? At the end of the day an illegal immigrant is still breaking the law and should be punished it does not matter if he or she does not steal.

  • http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-randolph/from-
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-g… There are 3,200,000 3.2 MILLION JOBS OPENINGS ?? http://www.cnbc.com/id/44838614

    UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT CRIMINALS. Its a Civil Matter.

    The whole thing is perplexing to people who don't understand that being an illegal immigrant in and of itself is not a crime. The most pervasive comments made in news stories about Secure Communities go a little like this: "Illegal immigrants are what they're called — they're considered criminals by mere definition. Illegals who broke a bunch of laws to enter and live here should be subjected to immediate arrest and deportation — that's fair for everyone."

    That's not accurate, but a lot of people have that same misunderstanding — even law enforcement professionals.

    During a teleconference last month on the troubles that Secure Communities is bringing to local law enforcement agencies, a few sheriffs on the call commiserated about their misunderstanding of immigration violations.

    "I was always told it was a felony federal violation of law and was always under the impression that turning over any illegal immigrants (to ICE) was mandated by federal law — and so did my employees," said Sheriff Ed Prieto of Yolo County, Calif. "But after we met with the Mexican consulate in Sacramento we learned it's not. Then I started looking into how many of our people are being deported before trial and I became very uncomfortable contacting ICE for nonviolent offenders."

    Kane County, Ill., Sheriff Patrick Perez said that "90 percent of law enforcement officers believe (just being an illegal immigrant) is a crime, but I learned after talking to an immigration judge that it is just a civil offense."

    Sara Dill, a member of the American Bar Association's Commission on Immigration and a member of the ABA's Criminal Justice Council, explained it to me this way: "States are seeking to criminalize what is only a civil violation in federal law." Dill said that failing to get a permit for home construction is one example of a civil, not criminal, violation. "Putting illegal immigrants in a criminal context confuses merely being present in the United States without authorization with crimes such as falsely claiming citizenship or identity theft, which are crimes under federal law."

    Everyone knows that of the universe of illegal immigrants, some have committed nonviolent and violent crimes — and everyone believes these should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    But believers of following "the letter of the law" cannot continue equating all illegal immigrants living in this country with criminals, who have plenty of civil rights of their own. That's not the American way.
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-g
    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    • The sheriff took his cue from a Mexican official? Nice. The point: a law is flouted, whether civil or criminal, when an individual enters this country without permission. Period. Just because it is currently carries a federal civil penalty doesn't lessen its illegality. Although you seem to think so. You're argument is like saying, cereal manufacturers should be able to put glass shards in Wheaties because it's not currently a criminal offense. Really? Your logic would have thousands of folks dying from internal bleeding before the cereal producers were held criminally punishable. Good job.

  • Immigration reform would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue over three years,” the letter says. “The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scored the bi-partisan 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill that was proposed in the Senate as increasing federal revenues by $15 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $48 billion over the 2008-2017 period.”

    Studies from groups across the political spectrum have proven the economic and fiscal benefits of comprehensive immigration reform. By requiring illegal immigrants to register with the government, pay fees and back taxes, and correct their status, we can drastically expand our tax base. A report by the Center for American Progress found that passing comprehensive immigration reform would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue over three years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scored the bi-partisan 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill that was proposed in the Senate as increasing federal revenues by $15 billion over the 2008-2012 period and by $48 billion over the 2008-2017 period.

    In addition to expanding our tax base, economists have proven that comprehensive immigration reform would also increase wages for native workers, thereby boosting tax revenues generated by all workers. The CATO Institute found that forcing undocumented immigrants to get right with the law by registering with the government would boost the incomes of U.S. households by $180 billion in 2019, which would also lead to increased government revenues, without increasing tax rates.

    Just like our budget deficit, immigration reform is an issue that we cannot afford to ignore. Bipartisan proposals that are tough, fair, and practical have garnered support from across the ideological spectrum in Congress, as well as from President Bush and the current administration. Comprehensive immigration reform would clearly help us reduce our deficit and debt, and would do so without raising tax rates.

    US economy largely unaffected by illegal immigration

    WASHINGTON — A study released Wednesday concludes that illegal-immigrant workers do not drain jobs or tax dollars and have a neutral impact on the U.S. economy.
    Because illegal immigrants occupy a small share of the work force — about 5 percent — and work low-skilled jobs at lower wages than other workers, their overall influence on the economy is trivial, according to the report, sponsored by the Migration Policy Institute, a pro-immigration think tank in Washington.
    "The fate of the U.S. economy does not rest on what we do on illegal immigration," said Gordon H. Hanson, author of the report and economics professor at the University of California-San Diego.
    Illegal immigrants contribute a tiny 0.03 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, with that gain going to employers who save money on cheap labor, the report says, while their cost to the economy is 0.10 percent of GDP, which mainly comes from public education and publicly funded emergency health care.
    The net impact at minus 0.07 percent of GDP means that illegal immigrants have an essentially neutral effect on the economy, Hanson said.
    The report does not factor in the spending or entrepreneurship that illegal immigrants contribute to the economy, said Marc Rosenblum, senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute.
    Where illegal immigrants do have a substantial impact, Hanson added, is in specific labor-intensive and low-skilled industries such as agriculture, construction, hospitality and cleaning services, where the share of native-born workers has dropped precipitously.
    Because the U.S. has dramatically raised the education level of its adult population in the last 50 years — going from about 50 percent of all working-age adults without a high school diploma in 1960 to just 8 percent today — the native-born, low-skilled work force has shrunk, while employers continue to require low-skilled workers.
    This leaves room for illegal immigrants to take such jobs at a low cost, the report says.
    Illegal immigrants now account for 20 percent of working-age adults in the U.S. who don't have a high school degree.
    While the influx of illegal immigrants is one of the factors keeping low-skilled wages stagnant, the biggest losers in the current system are legal low-wage workers, both native and foreign born, who compete with the illegal immigrants, Rosenblum said.
    Meanwhile, employers reap higher profits because of lower labor costs and more productive businesses.
    The solution to this imbalance, proposed by the Migration Policy Institute, is to provide more visas and legal channels for unskilled workers to enter the U.S.
    Today, low-skilled workers must have a green card — effectively requiring them to have close family members in the U.S. — or obtain a temporary work visa.
    "We really need to approach migration control comprehensively by both strengthening enforcements and creating legalization mechanisms that will control the unauthorized population and improve the economic outputs that we get from immigration," Rosenblum said.

    • Neutral Impact on Taxes…….Wrong. Check out your local Food Stamp Offices—No LEGAL documentation required to get assistance, FREE Lunch at school Breakfast is FREE for family members as Well including those Not enrolled in school. Free Medical. By the Way "Free" in this scenario means "Free to undocumented applicants but CHARGED to TAX PAYERS>>>>> Ergo, "Neutral" on Taxes—-NOT>

  • I can't help wondering what would happen if farmers paid their workers a decent wage. Or is it just a foregone conclusion that only underpaid workers are able to do the work? Part of the reason chattel slavery lasted so long in the US was the work, while laborious, was so low-paying, ( but not below white's dignity — if you check early census records and see many, many "laborers" on these farms. "Laborer" is early census code for day-laborer. Not slave.) whites refused it. So what would happen if their modern-day counterpoint were paid, oh, I don't know, a living wage? Something in the presumptuous equation farm workers = not worthy of decent wage smacks of oh-so American elitism. Is it too wooly headed to think that some kinds of hard, dirty work is honorable and ought to be paid for accordingly? Is it me, or mightn't this be the solution that encourages the missing labor pool to displace the one now filled by — and expected to be filled by — illegals? Just wondering.

Leave a Comment