1. Immigration is good for our country
2. Having some rules in place to govern it is sensible (duh)
3. Disregarding those rules (and related rules, like hiring of undocumented immigrants) ought to be discouraged and result in some unfavorable consequences for the offender
4. These rules should be applied to all immigrants and foreigners who are working in the U.S.
5. Fairly free borders on our North and South makes sense for commerce and good relations, but deserve to be adequately policed
Becoming a citizen of the U.S. is something that has and should remain a worthy goal for those who desire it. In order to maintain the worthiness of that goal (and to make it fair to all), there should be conditions met regarding knowledge of the laws and history of this country. It doesn't have to be much, just somthing. I believe that is still the case, and I haven't heard any proposition to change that. Aside from being born here, just showing up shouldn't constitute a right to citizenship.
listening to a speach by the president of the group that organized Monday's protest on the National Mall, it's clear that (at least for that group) citizenship is only one facet of concern. Another is labor rights for citizens and non-citizens working here and in the rest of this hemisphere.
It should not be a shock to anyone who supported NAFTA that cross-border labor issues are now becoming intertwined with citizenship and immigration issues.
I have no delusions that the need to preserve our laws and sovereignty is a concern for anyone outside of the U.S., or for some in the U.S., who have had the rhetoric of free trade rammed down their throats. Why would it? This is especially true for people who see this country as a white devil.
Is our vision of free trade the same vision shared by our neighbors? This is another fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next 50 or so years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Tricky stuff.
As the daughter of an immigrant family who had to be sponsored to come here, work the low end jobs (janitorial and meat packing factories in the 'back of the yards' - Bridgeport) and study for years before taking the citizenship test, I appreciate being an American and all of its benefits. There are many. I am truly blessed not to have been raised in Communist Lithuania.
My family tried to assimilate and learn the language, get along and be Americans. It wasn't always easy. Immigrants are often taken advantage of. A pretty accurate depiction of my family's experience can be found in Sinclair's The Jungle. I adore feeling like the American dream happened to us.
But today things are much different. Laws are much different. I work in transplant and I can tell you that while hospitals are bound by the law to approach families, regardless of their legal status, about organ donation that illegal immigrants are prohibited by law from receiving organ transplants. They receive EMTALA cards, or Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act cards, which ensure that hospitals do not "dump" indigent immigrants, but these cards also specify that organ donation is NOT covered. That is unless the undocumented immigrants are wealthy - they rarely are.
This is worrisome on many levels and I do not claim to know the solution. I do know that it doesn't feel right. We are told by law we can (and have to)treat patients up to the point where they require transplantation and then care must stop and our doctors, nurses and care team must then watch patients that they have become attached to die.
That's fucked up.
I'm glad I'm a citizen and was born here in America. I'm glad that I have great insurance and benefits that allowed me to take the time off I needed to get healthy.
And that's what I have to say about immigration today.
I think what most Americans are worried about is that immigrants are straining our already limited social resources. I can appreciate that. My worry is that instead of generating more funding for social programs we'd rather reduce the number of people eligible to receive them and that sucks for a lot of reasons.
A certain little girl in need of new kidneys was all over the news a few years ago for just the kind of thing Lady Di is talking about. That story broke my heart especially since at the time I was not yet completely out of the woods in regards to my ticker and thought to myself, "Why is it that a guy like me, who didn't take care of himself for years and is largely responsible for his condition, eligible for a new heart and this poor little girl gets the shaft because she was born poor to undocumented workers?" That is totally wrong. But here in America, Mickey Mantle gets his new liver just so he can continue to drink himself to death. Makes me feel kind of embarassed.
Also, let's face it, there are a lot of racists out there that hide behind more popular policies to back an agenda that is not so noble. I'm not saying everyone, just the folks from Mississippi.
You both bring up a very good point, that of the limit to which we're willing to provide services to illegals. (That term is under fire right now, but as long as the laws are as they are, that will have to be an adequate name).
We can get ourselves into some tricky stuff (Di, 04/11/06) with laws. When it comes to clergy becoming criminals for helping illegal immigrants, I'm not sure how much of that is a mis-representation or truth, but it's not the first time that a law or proposed law would penalize someone for helping someone out. Part of proposed broad ideas for national health care include provisions that would penalize physicians for providing medical care outside of the system. You can make the same argument with abortion services, but then you get into the question of who's being helped and for what reasons, yadda, yadda - I ain't gonna touch it.
But the point is that the interests of state, organizations and individuals clash in some messy ways. I'm not sure that is a bad thing. I will never expect to see laws that do more than simply cause us the least amount of harm possible.
My own family is too far removed from immigration to make this a terribly emotional experience for me. However, it is of interest to me, because I care about the direction and nature of our country, and of our side of the world particularly. I mentioned in my post that I'd like a minimal amount of knowledge regarding our history and laws, but I fully realize that we can barely get that out of citizens with high school and college degrees earned here! So, I'd settle for sincere love of country - this country - and not the obvious efforts in the last week to replace foreign flags with American flags turned rightside-up. Let's at least be honest. I can recognize the racists, and I would appreciate it if the people who hate our country would just admit that they hate it and not try to tell me a week later that they don't.
Economic integration has been the chosen tool to quell armed conflict in Europe and it's worked fairly well at that, but not at much else. They still hate each other and will probably never get their union to be more than it is now. Over here, the only way that we can resolve the issue we're facing is to add more states to the south and hope to integrate them without breaking apart.
-Over here, the only way that we can resolve the issue we're facing is to add more states to the south and hope to integrate them without breaking apart.
Are you suggesting annexing Mexico? We haven't even made Puerto Rico a state yet.
I think Joey has been reading World Net Daily:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45923
It don't get more conservative than that. I go there to find out what you guys are up to.
No, michael, I have never looked at that.
I'm not suggesting that we should annex Mexico. I'm suggesting that parts of northern Mexico might someday end up joining this union for economic reasons. Relax. Oh, and I just checked out that site. You should spend your time more wisely.
All that south of the border talk made me hungry. I just finished off a killer chorizo quesadilla with a side of beans and rice. Immigration DEFINITELY benefits us.
That does sound good. I am going to a taqueria on Clark right now!
This has turned into the lady di, michael k and old dog page!
Shhh! Be quiet. Maybe the others won't notice that we're here.
Be very, very quiet.
*evil grin*
I just wanted to add that there has been much media attention to the hospital I work for lately regarding how we handle the immigrant/transplant issue. I work in pediatrics which is always more sensational and "newsworthy" than adult healthcare. We have to turn down many children every year due to financial constraints. Most of the charity care we do goes to indigent immigrant transplants, but we can't afford to do them all or we'd go bankrupt. Currently they outnumber citizens and that is not good. We train transplant surgeons from Mexico and South America. The thought process is - if you have a viable transplant center in your country you need to go there. We give special consideration to immigrants from countries that do not have such centers.
Our charity committee chooses who we transplant largely based on social situations, i.e. who has the family support to care for the child post transplant and ensure a successful future for the child. Also, kidneys are not usually considered as end stage kidney disease does not result in death but in dialysis.
Some patient's families go straight to the media and make us sound like evil money mongers that choose to throw these children away. That makes me angry. I know if I were a parent I would do anything to get my child transplanted but I work for an ethical hospital, damnit, and this media fuckery makes us look like we're cold hearted and in turn has twisted our arms to provide a few transplants in which the patient or parents did not medically comply and in the end, DID end up losing the organ. That is NOT good for the donation pool.
I get outright pissed off about this. And I still don't have a solution.
shhh!
)O(
I'll be relaxing now.
Forgive the rant.
Maybe it's a tad late to get in on the debate, but I have to add a couple things. I think the reason this issue has come to a head is because of our trade policies. For the longest time, we could absorb as many immigrants as could make it here. However, with all the manufacturing jobs being outsourced to foreign countries (mainly China), the lower middle class is getting pinched, and the political and budgetary pressures are mounting. Their standard of living has dropped markedly since the late 80s. Unchecked immigration strains the public services in two ways---by using these services and not paying a fair share of taxes because some work in cash only jobs. I don't blame them, they didn't do anything other than exploit an opportunity to better their lives, and who wouldn't. And don't bother telling me these folks do work we won't. If, like in the EU, there were more strict labor laws, there would be more wage protection for the middle class, and even menial jobs would pay a livable wage. The government's failure was not taking the initiative to secure our borders. The first priority of any government is to secure your borders. We exercise this right to decide who comes in and out of the USA with every country except Mexico. I'd like for all the Mexicans to cry on the shoulder of a Haitian or Cuban about being shut out. A shared border does not entitle you free passage into our country. It's that simple. We have a fundamental right to decide who comes in and out of our country. By not doing this, the national security is compromised. This opinion isn't that extreme by the way, it's an accepted practice in the EU, some of the most liberal countries in the world. The only thing we can do from here on out is offer amnesty without penalty and secure the border to ensure we won't be having this debate in 10 years when another 10 million folks have made their way into the US.
Joe, you said:
"So, I'd settle for sincere love of country - this country - "
This is an interesting statement. What do you mean by this? I'm not trying to be a pud, but what is there to love?
...and I don't mean this in the sense that America Sucks is Evil or anything like that.
I don't believe that. But isn't what makes this country different, in the love/patriotism (love of country dept.) is based on what Lincoln says...
a country, not dedicated to this land between Mountain Range X and River Y...a Mother Country...a Fatherland...a patriarch and its royal bloodline...
Lincoln says we are a country dedicated to a proposition - I take this to mean that to love America requires embracing some sort of intellectual idea. Maybe you weren't wrong with your first proposal re: the relationship between the necessities of American citizenship and something like education.
Now, if you still believe that such a thing is impractical for immigrants as well as people who were born here...where do we, or how can we get the love of country you want?
Maybe you mean, 'I want Americans to appreciate America'...I dunno, just throwing some shit out there.
More shit thrown out there:
I thought Joe meant more that he wanted to keep people who hated America out rather than ensure love.
Also, does the proposition that all men are created equal only apply to those born on American soil or those from countries from which it is easier to immigrate? To be certain, not all immigration laws are created equal.
Ed hit what I think I'm trying to communicate. I don't believe that it's impractical to educate. I want there to be a love of the American ideal. Unfortunately, I think that not enough Americans value that ideal. If they did, then we would see more idividuals helping others (I'm lazy in this regard!): If they did, then I don't think that we would have this odd power shift from legislative to executive that we've seen. The institutions are there to express it, but they aren't being used! If marches and protests can constitute a referendum that is either stamped by sympathetic legislation or is resisted with oposing knee-jerk legistlation, then somebody's not doing their job, and it's us. We're not acting like the model of liberty that we should. Lincoln pointed out that our credibility was damaged by slavery. I think our credibility is damaged by our lack of willingness to take this government of the people seriously. Instead, we let our kids get fat on McDonald's and burn their retinas on the X-Box, and then wonder why they all bitch about how we're not like Europe - you know, the land of promise where you can spend all of your mandatory vacation time from the job you can't get fired from making art. Sorry, Swaff, I don't mean to mock you, but I'd rather try to find the hard way to building a stable wage sector than liberally spreading the bulk of the wages of the 80% to 90% employed population around, just to shut-up a bunch of angry mobs up every several years. There isn't enough emphasis placed on the benefits of moral private business practices. If there were, we'd have a public confidence that would permeate interactions beyond business, and we'd be less litigious.
I'm with you Swaff, when it comes to understanding why people want to come here for a better life. I don't blame them either, but we've had a round of amnesty and we're right back there again.
As for michael's last comment: No, I don't think that only Americans are created equal. My God tells me that, not my country. My country can express that sentiment, but I know that it will not always do that. I especially know that I cannot count on other countries to express that. Further, I know that not all people from those other countries who come here feel the same way that I do about that. I'd like to help assure that those people don't get to be called Americans. I'll guess that most of the recently vocal people do think the same way that I do about equality, but I want the institutions and laws to be respected until they actually become tyrannical, not just inconvenient.
Did I make even less sense?
Joe, you said:
"I want there to be a love of the American ideal. Unfortunately, I think that not enough Americans value that ideal. If they did, then we would see more idividuals helping others (I'm lazy in this regard!):"
I would say that helping others, for either selfish or any reasons is the best thing a human being can do. Show me a miserable person helping someone else and I'll...
I digress. I don't see how what you descirbed is the "American ideal." I love the thing you described - I'm lazy too on this score.
I'm just not sure this is any part of formal or informal American theory or Am ethos I recognize. It may informally help people living together, but this is no more a preserve of America than "do onto others.." or "Always, no never..."
You get it.
Re this statement by you:
"I think our credibility is damaged by our lack of willingness to take this government of the people seriously. Instead, we let our kids get fat on McDonald's and burn their retinas on the X-Box, and then wonder why they all bitch about how we're not like Europe"
...people tend to come here for their reasons, not what America's image is. I think you want to have a serious discussion of the American ethos and its degredation.
This is a fine thing.
But our lack of credibility has more to do with the fact that our state dept has taken on Karin you know Hoo Hoos to head up Spin Control. AI've said this before but it's such a good line I'll repeat it:
WE WOULDN'T NEED INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE CONTROL IF WE DIDN'T DAMAGE SO MANY THINGS INTERNATIONALLY!!!!
...and regardless of our image abroad, people will continue to come here for reasons of their own - good or bad.
If you think we need a greater degree of civility in social discourse or political protest/debate...that is another thing, we do need it and it has something to do with education - more later if anyone is interested.
I hope I'm not coming off like too big of a prick here, but this is a difficult conversation.
Ed, If we've damaged things so badly internationally why do we have such border problems? Why are people still so desperate to get into the US? I'm curious as to your take on this.
There's a place I'd like to go, when you get there then I'll know.
Old Dog, you're right in saying we shouldn't import the EU model of labor laws. True. But we shouldn't be such free marketeers that the middle class is exposed with no safety net. Need some middle ground here.
"There isn't enough emphasis placed on the benefits of moral private business practices." C'mon, free markets and morality are polar opposites. You would have to legislate morality to ensure it (especially at the corporate level--many of which are foreign owned), and that flies in the face of our market system.
Back to immigration: Let's not forget there are areas of this country that are as underdeveloped as any second world nation. For all intents and purposes, I'm the son of an immigrant. My dad came up from Kentucky when he was 18 after attending a one room grade school. Those people are as poor as they come, and most left back then for the manufacturing jobs in the north. Nowadays, the only means of employment for HS graduates is the service sector (wal-mart, taco bell) or the military. The same is true of our rural towns, which are shrinking because the kids leave for lack of opportunities. It may seem callous, but let's take care of our own first and let their governments to the heavy lifting of helping their own people. So what is it, fence or no fence?
Lady Di:
These are two separate issues. I was addressing Joe's earlier statement about our image being damaged abroad because we play Xbox and eat too much McDonalds. If there is damage to our international image it has more to do with the present state of affairs in Iraq than the vision Joe was presenting about fat lazy Americas.
Why do people keep coming to America? What is the promise? It sounds like in your work you have contact with illegals...or at least know about their situation. I know families of migrant workers (mostly former migrant workers) - there are ways to get out of that life in DeKalb (believe it or not). People who come to America who can't read English - and have trouble reading in their native tongue don't care about what we are doing politically or culturally - they come here because their job (or lack thereof) is worse than being a migrant farmer.
Certainly you can say then that this is a "good" image of America, but it is closely related to economic opportunity or necessity. Again, knowing some people who come from migrant farmer families - the situation they're family left had to be pretty shitty. I don't know how things were for your family in Lithuania - but did your family just reject the Communist ideology of Lithuania or did they leave for other reason?
Let me say this, I love Joe's love of America. I love it (America) too. I just think it is a mistake to simply claim everything that is good as American...or connect it to American political thought. For better or worse, American political theory (from Madison to our French vistor deToc) begins and seems to always be related to self-interest. When Joe says the American ideal is "helping others" I'm going to call him on it. What Joe suggests is near the heart of the American ideal, seems to me to be something on the periphery - something that is an indirect infulence on America - something that moderates self-interest...and it's part of an indirect influence on American life that (for better or worse) we've all but abandoned.
Joe can say this would be a better country if we all acted in the spirit of cooperation. Joe can say immigrants should act greatful for economic opportunities. But when he says that American theory requires a sort of harmony between those who have differences guided by the principles of "one should help thy neighbor" that American thought eventually leads to something approaching social peace and harmony (that was implied by his initial post) - I say: "That sounds good but it doesn't sound anything like American political theory as I understand it."
When I see the protests, the inflamatory, even anti-American statements beign thrown out by protesters and their supporters, I say: "Now that's America."
Listen to the debate you guys were having before I stumbled in here. Allocation of health care resources, employment opportunities - those who are here versus those who are coming here, the first job of government is to secure our borders (my government to be good has to keep me safe) - these are all things worth talking about.
Di said, or quoted: "There's a place I'd like to go, when you get there then I'll know."
For me, that place is right here. I love America, but I understand its got more faces than Janus and often doesn't understand itself...just like me. I think I could see where Joe was going with his argument. Hwe was not merely suggesting, as Michael would have us believe that Joe wanted people who didn't love America to get the fuck out. I'm not sure why Mr K always wants to portray our friend the Old Dog as some g bushy, America, loveitorleaveit sunuvabithc. Joe doesn't even own a blue tie.
But I saw where Joe's argument headed, and to the extent that he looked for the solution to this discord from American political theory I still say: "Sorry buddy, I don't think the solution is there."
Joe will have to show me where these things come from for me to follow his argument. I'd like to end up in the same place.
Did I answer your question, or did I babble like a boob. I think I broke my ten minute rule in this response.
When all is said and done there is one thing that I think fundamentally determines one's view of immigration law and that is this: Us and Them. Depending on each individuals vision of who "WE" is determines how you will weigh in on these things as well as lots of other issues. If you say "We need to tak care of our own first." and "we" means the human race it's one thing but if you mean "we" as southern white conservative left handed albino baptists, it's another thing. So, when we are talking about "us" who are "we" talking about?
I'd like to apologize in advance for this post as I know it sounds like it was crafted by a 2nd year art student taking his 1st philosphy class.
Ed, I know that I can count on you to bring my head out of the clouds!
Obviously, I hadn't thought this through, beyond the emotions that the get stirred in me when I see people who have desire and nothing much else. It crossed my mind when I saw the protests that that act is very American. And, while I admit that I have a very modest claim to understanding the principles that this country was founded on, I think that I have to cling to the hope that there's something there that might not be there - something that is good and loving. Then again, that's up to us, not our govt.
Sorry Mike, but you can't save the whole planet. There has to be an us and them, unless you're willing to let anyone and everyone come over and drive down your standard of living. How much are you willing to sacrifice? We're talking about a finite number of jobs and resources. BTW, how did you know I'm left handed? Americans have to decide how many immigrants per year is feasible. I don't think there's anything xenophobic about that, it's simply a decision about what is in the national interest.
I'm not saying that we can or even should try to save the whole world, Craig. Just that when we choose who to save we should be even handed about the process. In lots of instances, we have not been.
And YOU KNOW how I know you're left handed you litle minx. XOXO
I'd like to put this one to rest, while deflecting my glaring ignorance by Gizoogleing this for everyone.
http://sites.gizoogle.com/index2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogger.com%2Fcomment.g%3FblogID%3D20419232%26postID%3D114477615036400556
O.K., that didn't work. Gizoogle it yourself!
I'll put it to rest after I answer Ed.
Yes, you answered my question and I think I'm right there with you. There are 2 VERY different views of America (probably more for for this discussion...). To our south people want to be here for the economic opportunities, the healthcare, the air quality, you name it. Abroad we're not looking so great.
My grandmother, grandfather, father and aunts left Lithuania in 1944 because Stalin and Hitler were using the Baltic states as bargaining chips during WW2 as their ports on the Baltic Sea were valuable. They were told by neighbors that if they didn't flee in the middle of the night with nothing, they'd be shot in the morning. Those who stayed were.
Lithuania's ideology isn't Communist. They fought for and won Democracy and UN participation in the '90s.
And being able to protest or say that I think our President is an inept, unqualified idiot is indeed American. That's a right I cherish.
Good stuff.
I was asking because you said this:
"I am truly blessed not to have been raised in Communist Lithuania."
Good stuff kiddo! Rock on everyone!!!
Oh, and you are one of the people who is getting cursed with 2 CDs - breather and the floating Basement's debutt - GOITER
Post a Comment