Posted on 01/29/2006 11:27:23 AM PST by NormsRevenge
The notion that one must be anti-immigrant to oppose illegal immigration has endured for too long. Numerous readers have suggested that because I call for steps to reduce illegal immigration I must bear animus toward foreigners, especially Latinos.
In fact I've long supported high levels of legal immigration to the United States and potential citizenship for all who arrive here. That position seems to me incompatible with racism and xenophobia.
Another faction of my readers objects that large scale legal immigration itself is harmful to America. Their arguments aren't without merit. Legal immigration does hurt some native workers economically. A rapidly growing population does strain infrastructure -- consider Southern California's freeway system -- and impacts the environment.
Schools suffer when forced to educate ESL students beside native speakers. And low-skilled legal immigrants typically impose a disproportionately large burden on social services.
I regard the above drawbacks of legal immigration as irrefutable facts. Any honest immigration advocate must acknowledge them. Nevertheless, I believe large-scale legal immigration is not only a defensible policy, but the best among the immigration policy options available to the United States. I'll use the remainder of this column and two subsequent columns to defend that position on three grounds:
1. Justice demands that we accept some immigrants to the United States.
2. Significant benefits accrue to countries that successfully assimilate large numbers of immigrants. 3. Among the drawbacks associated with high levels of immigration many aren't inherent consequences of the policy; rather, they are avoidable consequences of other misguided policies.
I view accepting some immigrants here legally as a moral imperative for right-thinking Americans. Our nation was founded largely by Europeans fleeing persecution or economic servitude.
Among today's immigrants many seek entrance to America for the same reasons. So long as we are able to without undue burden, it makes moral sense to welcome those immigrants, as we've historically done.
The truism that we're ‘‘a nation of immigrants'' doesn't itself justify any immigration policy today. Yet the realization that our ancestors came here as immigrants, changed the culture by their presence and competed with contemporary natives suggests it is morally suspect if we -- the beneficiaries of that past immigration -- deny the same opportunity to foreigners today because we fear that they will change our culture or compete for jobs we hold.
In other words, those of us lucky enough to be born here without having done anything to earn the privilege do not have the moral right to ban all foreigners, even though we do enjoy that legal right.
This is particularly true with regard to asylum seekers. Imagine a Christian in Darfur targeted for death by a Muslim militia, or an African woman whose tribe plans to stone her for an unwed pregnancy.
Do we want to be the kind of country that saves the lives of such people? Or would we prefer to let them die on the principle that we aren't responsible for distant deaths, or due to concern that they'll have a negative impact on domestic wages?
We cannot help every disadvantaged person in the world, but that's an awful argument against providing the opportunity for a better life to whatever fraction we can help.
The lifeboat analogy seems useful here. Those who clamor onto a lifeboat after a shipwreck haven't the moral right to keep out those treading water for their added comfort, nor the moral responsibility to take on so many passengers that the boat sinks.
Ideally they'd adopt the most fair, orderly process possible to allow more people aboard, limiting extra passengers when the burden they impose jeopardizes the integrity of the raft. The analogy is imperfect. A lifeboat sinks or floats depending on rather straightforward factors. It is much harder to determine the levels at which illegal immigration begins to harm a nation, how much harm is tolerable and what constitutes an undue burden.
In this column I'm simply arguing that absent an undue burden, however we define it, we have a moral obligation, though not a legal obligation, to admit immigrants.
Some readers will argue that an undue burden has already been reached. That is outside the scope of my argument, and will be addressed in a future column.
Others will object that the United States hasn't any right to limit immigration at all -- that open borders are a natural human right infringed upon whenever limits on movement are erected.
In fact, the desire to immigrate to America is based not on our geography or the characteristics of our land, but on the successful society we've built here.
Allowing so many newcomers that our society would be threatened thus seems an abdication of responsibility sure to hurt native American citizens, past immigrants and those who would've wanted to immigrate in the future.
My point is to let the cucarachas see what we are talking about.
see what Google is letting the mexicans see about Free Republic
http://www.google.com/search?hl=es&q=Free+Republic&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda+en+Google&lr=
She's about to leave NM for Cali. I'm on the lastt 1/4 of the book.
Thanks, truly enjoyed E, D & F.
Be waiting!!!!!!!!!!!
ping
Never. When the entire population of the earth, all 6 billion of it is in the US then we have an obligation to seek out space aliens to import. Unlike any other nation it's our moral responsibility and duty.
Just once I'd like for one of these writers to tell us except for Africa where it's believed humans originated what country isn't a nation of immigrants? Unless we're expected to believe the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Cubans and everyone else magically popped up out of the ground then I'd say all of them are. So why isn't anyone else morally obligated to take in a million a year and another million illegals?
There was a time when this country needed immigrants. But this is no longer true except for select occupations. We already have too many people. And far too many legal immigrants (by no means all) are coming just to get on welfare (why not require someone to sponsor them so that they would not end up on public welfare), from hostile countries and set up cells, are criminals, or they have this enormous sense of entitlement - refuse to learn the language and expect to be provided with translators and other perks.
None of this has to do with racism. The deciding fact should be what is best in the long run to preserve this country and our culture. We do not need more Russian Mafia or Latino gang members (why are they even allowed to remain here?).
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.