Enemy of the State, Part II

Siege at the O.K. Corral

Now that we have weathered to Post Obama election cycle, the American electorate have spoken in a profound and unequivocal fashion: they disagree with Mr. Obama’s policies; including his administration’s opposition to and, his legal challenge of SB-1070. Punctuated by the election of Jan Brewer to a full term as Governor, the people of Arizona have also spoken.

News reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Arizona is well within its rights (as prescribed by the Constitution) to pursue enforcement where Federal Laws fall short. Governor Brewer’s summary of a Ninth Circuit Court Hearing on SB 1070 provides the relevant facts of Arizona’s argument. Arizona’s efforts are a last resort attempt to navigate the broken immigration enforcement system.

I find myself with a bit of a dilemma; I risk betraying my predecessors by announcing my unequivocal support for Arizona’s [new] immigration enforcement law. With that, I am compelled to state that I am a naturalized American citizen. I emigrated to the United States in the 1970s with my family in pursuit of a “better life.” When I took my oath of citizenship, I swore [on the Bible] to adopt America as my home and to “forsake all ties” to the land of my birth (somewhat like a vow of marriage). I further swore to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic”—that is, all laws not just the ones I like. Thus, I must obey the law which requires me to maintain a speed at 30 MPH when driving in a residential neighborhood with the same zeal with which I obey the law that restrains me from robbing my neighborhood bank because I am broke and hungry. The President is likewise obligated to “support and defend” the laws of the land. By agreeing to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," Mr. Obama and the Justice Department are similarly compelled. It is; therefore, puzzling to see the zeal with which The Administration has attacked Arizona.

It would be hypocritical of me to deny my sensitivity to the plight of immigrants; however, it would be equally hypocritical of me to condone lawlessness by looking the other way while lawbreakers breach our borders with reckless abandon and contempt. These are “crimes against the people,” of which we are the people. Moreover, how can the American people (the We) justify the efforts and diligence of those individuals, the world over, who visit American embassies daily, in pursuit of a LEGAL pathway to American residency and citizenship? These individuals and families have chosen the legal route to American residency and should not be punished. Lawbreakers should be punished; not rewarded with the prize of their illegal pursuit. To be fair, Arizona is not the only breech point for illegal immigration, nor is Mexico the only country whose citizens seek to violate US Immigration laws. Those seeking to enter the United States do so for two basic reasons: to seek a safe harbor from political and ethnic violence, and pursuit of better economic conditions that are characteristic of the US.

Like many would-be immigrants, I too was captivated by the myth of American streets being paved with gold. In retrospect; however, the gold metaphor could be said to be true; instead of bits of precious metal, the true commodity is one of opportunity. Agreeably, the United States, like no other nation on earth offers endless opportunities for success in just about any endeavor to those with the vision, courage and fortitude to have a go at it. At the risk of over simplification, whether one pursues an education, commerce, invention or philanthropy, the only limitations are likely to be self-imposed. A short walk down any American street would validate this observation. Nowhere else on the planet do opportunities to improve one’s condition exist as they do here.

From its earliest days, America has served as a beacon to the world through its open and [somewhat] liberal immigration policy, yet reports of illegal immigration paints the opposite picture. Whether Irish, Italian, Eastern European, or in recent times, African and [Southern Hemisphere] Hispanic, recent migrants frequently encounter hostility from the largely immigrant populace.

A recent conversation with my brother, an attorney with a sizeable immigration practice, shed some light on this phenomenon. Historically, American immigration policy and laws have tightened against targeted ethnic groups as they sought entry into the US. For example, in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, Irish immigrants were met with twofold obstacles; hostile incumbents and equally hostile immigration laws. Similarly, once the Irish were adequately assimilated, they in-turn discriminated against the incoming wave of Italians. With discrimination came the inevitable legal obstacles that at a glance, reeked of anti-Italian sentiment. This phenomenon has repeated with incredible consistency over the ensuing years; and continues today with the current wave of immigrants, thus blurring the line between opposition to illegal immigration, and anti-immigrant sentiment.

As a diplomatic tool, immigration serves two essential functions; the first is economic and the second, humanitarian. When applied for the economic benefit of a nation (such as labor force expansion), both the recipient nation and the immigrant benefit from the resulting economic intercourse; however, when applied for humanitarian reasons, the immediate beneficiary is likely to be the immigrant.

I suspect, it is this latter application that engenders hostile emotions in incumbents. A closer look at the current immigration debate, especially as it pertains to Mexico, reveals coexisting humanitarian and economic triggers to the immigration wave. While Mexicans flee deteriorating economic conditions, and increasing drug violence, they make ideal targets for American anger, especially in communities hardest hit by the recent global economic downturn. Nowhere is the disruption caused by the economic slump starker than it is in Arizona. With state by state unemployment ranging from 4% to 12.9%, Arizona is near the top at 10% of its workforce unemployed. Furthermore, Mexican citizens who receive medical care in the United States, effectively shift the burden of health care cost from one failed Welfare State (Mexico), while threatening to create another (Arizona). A review of Arizona’s government support systems, revealed that utilization by Mexicans outstrip that of native Arizonians and non-Mexican immigrants in 8 of the 9 categories reviewed. Allowed to continue, the daily influx of illegal immigrants will, in short order, overburden the State of Arizona, while inflaming anti-Mexican sentiments. With this approach, everyone loses—the taxpayers, by having to shoulder the burden of inflated social programs (including law enforcement costs); and the illegal immigrants, by perpetually settling for substandard living conditions and recipients of the wrath of angry citizens.

A solution to the illegal immigration dilemma will come only after those responsible for devising one, take the time to understand, fully, the historical and behavioral nature of the debate. This is only achievable with a dispassionate approach to the situation. Unfortunately, if Washing’s emotional response to Arizona’s SB1070 is any indication of the intended approach, this debate will continue unabated into the foreseeable future.

Historically, there have been periods when the United States was compelled to relax its immigration policies in order to accommodate displaced and economically deprived peoples. We saw this during the industrial revolution, where in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, large numbers of Europeans, fleeing economic distress, migrated to the United States. As fate would have it, the United States was also in the throes of its own economic crisis. Then, as now, new immigrants received much of the blame for the state of the economy. Are we to, once again, head down the same road, that of knee-jerk tightening of immigration laws? Or are we better off seeking a solution that, once-and-for-all, puts the on-again, off-again debate to rest. Immigration has the potential to catapult a nation to social and economic heights never before imagined. Tragically, however, immigration does not always lead to redemption. Whether as a result of misapplication, or mismanagement, immigration can, equally, account for the destruction of a culture as it can for its advancement. By failing to equitably enforce existing immigration laws, the United States faces such a danger.

In the final analysis, consistent and equitable enforcement of existing immigration laws would go a long way to quashing the racial tensions that fester around this topic. In addition, a solidly bipartisan effort to derive a legislative solution is mandatory. To be effective, any solution must be made to remain intact with every coming wave of immigrants. The legacy of shifting policy to stem the current tide is wrongheaded and immoral. In the words of Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq., “we create illegal immigration by not allowing legal immigration.” This is tantamount to social cannibalism, and betrays the legacy of what makes America exceptional—its “melting pot” of diverse cultures operating as one harmonious body. Stephens further emphasized the need to include cultural education in primary and secondary schools. By learning what makes us different [culturally], we can better understand and accept what unites us socially.

GOD bless America.