Immigration Shananigans

No where more than the debate on immigration is the inadequacies of our education system more apparent. I read with interest a post by RiShawn Riddle in the Expresso blog in the Indianapolis Star, http://blogs.indystar.com/expresso/

RiShawn is well meaning, and has many good points. But in his argument for why illegal immigrants breaking of American law is equivalent to civil rights disobedience of the 60's, his indoctrination into multiculturalism, political correctness, and right, "left-wing" thinking is, well, interesting to decode.

May 03, 2006
Is illegal immigration really a crime?
Posted by RiShawn Biddle

A line echoed in the debate over illegal immigration by some, including Expresso reader and commenter Ryan Cooper, is that while undocumented workers deserve sympathy, their violation of America's laws by residing here is also not tolerable. After all, argues Ryan: "I'd rather have a society that benefits from respect of the law than one that benefits from corruption."

Certainly by respecting the rule of law, everyone guarantees that each of our rights and privileges will be respected by others. More importantly, the nation survives intact. At the same time, one wonders how does a nation benefit from respecting laws that are also immoral and unworkable? More importantly, how does one eliminate such laws without bringing attention to them -- and violating them in the process?

Think about it. Numerous movements to reform American politics and society, from the abolition of slavery to the Civil Rights movement to end Crow segregation during the 1950s and 1960s, couldn't have been achieved without violating the laws that sustained them. Rosa Parks' own stand against Jim Crow laws is considered admirable today, but she was also violating the laws of that time. Same for anyone sitting at a Whites-only lunch counter or using a Whites-only restroom in protest of segregation. Nat Turner is regareded as a martyr in the eyes of those who review the fight to end slavery that led to the Civil, yet his violent efforts were considered criminal in their time. And don't forget our Founding Fathers, who stood up for liberty -- and violated British law -- through acts such as the Boston Tea Party and the 1776 secession from the United Kingdon.

This reality isn't limited to American history alone. Nelson Mandela and others were imprisoned for violating the laws that kept South Africa under apartheid while a generation of Czech intellectuals such as Vaclav Havel endured prison for violating rules that perpetuated Communism in the former Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile the Cubans dissidents who battle against Fidel Castro's tyranny are also felons and worse in the eyes of the government under which they currently or once lived.

Good old fashioned nostalgia, which paints a false image of history as it never was, has a way of concealing that each person's heroic quest is another's felony. So does the reality that nothing has an inherent existence or naturally-endowed virtue: As with the turn-of-the-20th century British army who thought the clapping of Tibetans was a welcoming when the latter were actually doing so to ward them off as evil spirits, the average American arguing the "law is the law" position have a difficult time seeing illegal immigration as anything other than disrespect for the law.

For those of that mindset, consider the argument of the undocumented worker advocating for the right to become a taxpaying American citizen: Because he doesn't likely have relatives already living here as American citizens, doesn't possess a rare skill or have sponsorship from an employer in need of hard-to-find talents, American immigration laws block him from coming here and becoming a legal contributor to the nation's economy. Even if he met any of those requirements, depending on the type of quota involved, it may take him two decades before even getting permanent resident status, the first step to citizenship.

In what kind of condition in which he is residing back in his home country? The Mexican migrant has few job prospects and has access to only $62,000 in per-capita capital according to the World Bank and just a shade under $2,000 for the Ethiopian (compared to the $513,000 in per-capita capital for the average American). For the Iranian engineer, it's a life under tyranny. Either way, their lives aren't rosy and their futures aren't looking too bright.

So making the torturous trip to these shores with its comparatively boundless opportunities for a better life isn't such a bad idea. To be branded a criminal for doing what humans have done naturally for centuries -- migrate to places that can better sustain them -- suddenly seems a little ridiculous. Given that they're actually contributing to the improvement of this nation as both taxpayers and as residents, being rendered among those who actually take the life, liberty and property of others is downright unfair.

So are the undocumented and those overstaying their visas really violating American laws? More likely, American immigration laws, especially given their bigoted origins, are violating morality.

My first observation in reading RiShawn's post, it is well-written. It is logical. And it leaves out so much truth.

Let's do a little analysis and read the codes. I interpret the bold statement above as what RiShawn says it is: our immigration laws are immoral. He further argues that they are immoral because it takes too long to become a citizen, and people live in horrible conditions in their native lands because they do not have as much access to per-capita capital (you have to really work to figure out what this means, because RiShawn has outdone himself. This is the very first time I have ever read this economic measurement. I think it means that if you have 4 neighbors with $500,000 each and you have $1000, then you have access to over $400,000 per capita capital. No wait, oh never mind, I'll look it up!) Finally, Shawn gets to the heart of the matter, and states that the immigration laws have bigoted origins, therefore they are immoral.

The last statement perhaps reflects the indoctrination of RiShawn's education. It is part of a leftist mantra. No need to actually investigate, weigh the arguments, read those who have done historical research, or to address the contradictions in the matter. It's bigoted in the past, ergo, all laws henceforward are bigoted too.

The first mistake with the truth that RiShawn makes is that today's immigration laws have bigoted origins. Let me think, wasn't there an anmesty in 1986 for illegal immigrants. Is that the bigoted origins that he is alluding to?

Let's look further. An easy source is Wikipedia.



# The Immigration and Nationality Act (or McCarran-Walter Act) of 1952 somewhat liberalized immigration from Asia, but increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected of Communist sympathies.
# The Immigration Act of 1965 discontinued quotas based on national origin, while preference given to those who have U.S. relatives. For the first time Mexican immigration was restricted.
# The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who had been in the United States before 1982 but made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant.
# The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made drastic changes to asylum law, immigration detention, criminal-based immigration, and many forms of immigration relief.
# The Real ID Act of 2005 created more restrictions on political asylum, severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants, increased immigration enforcement mechanisms, altered judicial review, and imposed federal restrictions on the issuance of state driver's licenses to immigrants and others.

Now Shawn does a great job of painting an equivalent picture of the illegal immigrant to Rosa Parks. They are here to assert their civil rights. As citizens? Well no, because they aren't citizens because it takes so dern long and is hard to become one in the US. So we sneak in, work undercover, have a separate standard of justice in some parts (you try showing a cop six sets of fake ID and see where you land. If you are illegal and living in Denver, you get a warning and drive off. One did that several times and then executed a police officer named Donnie Young.

Shawn has numerous other inaccuracies in his argument. First,