It's true that because children born to unauthorized immigrants are granted citizenship, if parents were compelled to leave the country without them, the breakup of families would be a tragedy. But seen in a more comprehensive perspective, parents who have to, or choose to leave the country have no need to abandon their children, they would be wrong do so, and the children will one day have the privilege of returning, as adults, if they choose.
It's true that the outsourcing of American jobs due to the corruption of government policies by transnational corporations is an even bigger problem than unauthorized immigration. But any implication that one problem should be ignored while another is addressed or complained about is unconsidered if not disingenuous.
Any number of partial truths can be embraced in support of the opinion that unauthorized immigration is an intractable problem, that the only solution is some form of accommodation. There has always been a faction of liberalism that involves a measure of guilt, and understandably, there is guilt involved for some liberals (many liberals being those few among the relatively privileged who are amenable to feeling guilt) who benefit in some way from the cheap, hard work of unauthorized labor. Rejecting conservative solutions like deportation and fence-building, maybe embracing the idea that the hard work and industrious ethic of the immigrants deserves reward, implies - especially for those thinking from guilt - the idea that the solution is some form of amnesty or "path to citizenship" that allows the unauthorized to "come out of the shadows." Returning to the theme of this paper, it should be fairly easy to see the bias for accommodation as a representative expression of the liberal world-view, guilt-driven or not: It's humane, it's idealistic, it's focused on the rights of the downtrodden. And as a characteristic, it's admirable. But as is more apparent in the progressive world-view, rights can sometimes compete and conflict, and accommodation for some can be oppression for others.
The best long-term solution for Americans and the unauthorized is a vigorous enforcement of existing laws against the employment of illegal aliens - against the American employers . When there is no work, practically all of the unauthorized will go home. They aren't here for our "freedom," they aren't here for our culture, and they certainly aren't here for our friendliness and magnanimity. If there is no work, for most of them, there is no reason to stay.
Why is this the best solution even for the unauthorized? Because in every country that is supplying emigrants as a relief-valve for the intolerable depredations of a ruling elite there are far more people who haven't left, who won't leave, and who will continue to suffer until the pressure for a radical transformation of their society builds to a flash-point. For transformation or revolution to succeed, those who are left behind need their itinerant compatriotas to come back home.
Granted, it may be true that even if immigration is under control, seasonal agricultural labor will need to be supplemented by immigrants, even if many Americans have been enticed into the life by a living wage. It's possible. It's a practical and hypothetical question that can only be answered when growers are forced to choose between 1) being prosecuted and 2) providing a living wage and decent workplace. I believe many Americans would, at least for some time in their lives, choose to become adequately-paid members of a community of seasonal migrant workers if the opportunity existed, maybe enjoying a virtual traveling circus of experiences. Imagine yourself - if you're young enough or have memory enough - spending a year in the fields as part of a sub-culture of free-ranging kibbutzers , maybe saving money for college. It would be more appealing than Marine Corps bootcamp and several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, would it not? The Marines aren't having much trouble recruiting people to risk their lives, sleep in holes, and endure severe discipline for long hours and low pay. When growers are compelled to obey immigration laws, and consequently, to pay a living wage, when citizens are drawn to the opportunity, the question of whether and how much supplemental immigrant labor is required will be answered at the time and on the ground.
As with any social-political issue, beneath questions of principle there are political and economic interests and psychological biases dividing the parties on unauthorized immigration. Many conservative leaders and pundits will serve corporate interests and pander to the racist vote; some liberals will serve corporate interests and pander to the Latino/Hispanic vote. But when conservatives can only offer a symbolic wall and the persecution of immigrants, liberals and progressives can unite with Latinos and Hispanics against racism and hypocrisy, for the humane treatment of the unauthorized, and for the just dispensation of illegal employers. It's encouraging when the principled thing is recognized as also being the politically advantageous thing.
To reduce a political perspective to a person's psychology is generally a cheap rhetorical manipulation. But there is a genuine psychological component to many people's feelings about the immigration issue, which unlike the passivity of guilt, may unduly contribute to the passion of a political perspective unless it's confronted and resolved. Emotional attachment can influence both Left and Right when a profound sympathy develops for those who are viewed as victims of one's opponents or enemies. It implicates a strange, ironic parallel between anti-abortionists and some pro-immigrationists . Those who would ban abortion, driven by emotion, by a fear and hatred of independent women and the "liberal" men who support them, are similar in a way to liberals who support unauthorized immigrants against abuse: The anti-choice legions love the zygotes as victims of liberalism, but have no comparable feeling for the plight of unwanted children or un-wanting mothers. Among liberals, stirred by contempt for racism and oppression, with a genuine sympathy for immigrants, there is often-times not a sufficiently balanced concern for the effects of unauthorized immigration on citizens. Psychology isn't the root of these perspectives, but it contributes to their political intensity. And the similarity in psychological influence ends where liberals can come to see a broader issue of rights, but where conservatives are determined to conserve their fixation on those they perceive as enemies.
Liberals and progressives share an interest in our Constitution's mandate to promote the general welfare, and in many other aspects of our national heritage. American workers - brown, black and white - have fought and died for the rights and benefits we have enjoyed. They didn't do it just for themselves, they did it so that we, their descendants, could have a better life. We should preserve the heritage they've given us against the effort among corporate interests to undercut what's been achieved. So for the common good, let's advocate for the prosecution of illegal employers; let's give the unauthorized an incentive to go home and help transform their nations, to live there as free men and women as most would prefer; let's control the borders, both from unauthorized immigration and from the emigration of jobs through outsourcing; let's give American workers the right to work at a living wage in factories and fields; let's unite with American Latinos and Hispanics in common cause against racism, discrimination, and unfair competition with the unauthorized. It's the righteous and humane thing to do. It's both a liberal and a progressive thing to do.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
