Thread: Which special circumstances make immigration OK?

http://www2.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3142944

Which special circumstances make immigration OK?
Conor Friedersdorf, Staff Writer

(This is a twice weekly column written by Conor Friedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Web site, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration. The blog is at www.beyondbordersblog.com)
On the eve of World War II, nearly 1,000 Jewish refugees approached the United States aboard the passenger ship St. Louis, pleading for safe haven.

President Roosevelt ordered the ship back to Europe; most Jews aboard wound up in concentration camps. Who among us wouldn't retroactively right that wrong if we could? Yet modern day wars and genocides claim countless victims whose survival could be assured an American offer of asylum.

Those who argue that America can't accommodate everyone whose human rights are at risk have a point. But how many can we accommodate? How many should we accommodate?

Questions as tough as these are inevitably part of the immigration debate, never mind the impression given activists on each side that America's proper course is easily charted.

* * *

American citizenship is based on an idea: all humans are endowed with inalienable rights, such that political legitimacy springs exclusively from the consent of the governed.

Our values are universal - a human of any race, religion or national origin can embrace them as fully as a native-born citizen. Hence our shame at slavery and past prohibitions against non-European immigrants.

Few argue for a return to an immigration policy that admits only Europeans. Yet reasonable support exists for a policy shift that would favor the most skilled immigrants for legal status among the many millions who'd immigrate to the United States if given the chance.

In a globalizing world, high-skill immigrants help America keep its competitive edge. Yet poor educational systems and economic infrastructure in Africa and Latin America ensure that, among prospective immigrants, Africans and Latinos will on average possess fewer economic skills than their Asian and European counterparts.

Is it proper for America to favor high-skill immigrants given the extreme economic need of low-skill immigrants? Should America worry that favoring high-skill immigrants will disproportionately exclude some races and national origins from future immigration pools? Is it fair to admit low-skill immigrants who disproportionately require support from other taxpayers? * * *

While on a fixed budget an emergency requires that you hire a caretaker for your 1-year-old ba for eight weeks. After interviewing 10 candidates within your price range you discover that the best one, the one you feel most comfortable leaving your child with, is an illegal immigrant. Do you hire her to care for the child, or the next best candidate? What should be the punishment for parents who hire illegal immigrants as caretakers? * * *

A skilled Indian programmer is recruited a San Francisco software firm for a high-level position developing their next generation product. Another applicant for the same position, an American citizen, meets the basic qualifications for the job but is nowhere near as good a candidate as the Indian programmer. Assuming that the Indian would contribute more to the American economy if hired, thus indirectly benefiting everyone except the American worker, who will hypothetically be unemployed for 6 months if not hired and then take a job at a significantly lower salary, should immigration law allow the company to hire the Indian, or require that they pass on him because an American is qualified for and willing to do the job? * * *

A Mexico City construction worker picks up the newspaper, reads that President Bush has waived the requirement for work papers along the Gulf Coast, hears that contractors are hiring illegal immigrants with impunity and sets out for Louisiana.

He knows he is technically breaking the law, and simultaneously feels as though the United States government has tacitly condoned his illegal entry. Amid continuing labor shortages he works for a year demolishing a toxic waste-covered elementary school and building a new school in its place.

Since he's proven a reliable worker, the construction company keeps him on for other rebuilding jobs. He has no health or car insurance.

Meanwhile he's met a woman, married and watched his son be born on American soil. Two years later, when the political winds change and a crackdown on illegal immigration occurs due to the waning need for cheap rebuilding labor, is it fair to deport him?

Which special circumstances make immigration OK?



When they come here legally

This writer shows the attitude which creates the problem. The actual policy regarding work authorization was that since many offices with files would be destroyed by Katrina the need to produce papers was waived for 45 days.

There is a potential for abuse and cynicicism here but it was not that there was an overall policy change. In fact there is quite a groundswell of citizen resentment on the part of people who were living in the region.

The working class voters are upset that it is so easy that a minority composed ogf polticians and contractors have now made it possible for the illegals to get away with working without ever having had papers at all.

Commentator Conor Friersdorf would have us believe that Pres. Bush represents the expressed will of the American people in his having temporarily (we hope) overturned the democratically acheived legislation.