— from David Turnoy —
Now that the council has passed an ordinance protecting undocumented residents from being asked their documentation status by our local deputies, a number of folks are questioning why this wasn’t allowed to go to a vote of the people. Others are questioning the council for sanctioning “illegal immigration,” which they interpret as breaking the law. It is often (if not always) instructive to study the historical background of controversial issues to enable one to form an opinion based on fact and not emotion, which is what I attempt to do here.
Why have so many undocumented immigrants come to the United States in recent decades? An American exceptionalist point of view would answer, “Of course illegals want to come to our country. Their countries are poor, and America is the greatest country in the world.”
This uninformed naïve answer neglects historical facts; let’s look first at Mexico. Up until 1993, the Mexican constitution protected the price of corn grown by Mexican farmers. But in exchange for getting in on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico had to relinquish this protection. As a result, American corn flooded the Mexican market, undercutting Mexican farmers and forcing millions of them off their farms. Responsible Mexican husbands and fathers, wanting to stay in their villages but needing to support their families, began traveling to the north, seeking employment to send money home. Clearly the US, in implementing NAFTA and benefiting a few American CEOs at the expense of millions of Mexican people, is at least partially responsible for this.
In more recent years we have seen an influx of people from the Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Gang warfare in these countries has made life incredibly dangerous. And what fuels this gang activity? Fighting over turf for dealing illicit drugs. Who are the prime users demanding illicit drugs? Americans. In addition, these countries have been beset by unstable political situations. In 1954 the US CIA overthrew the democratically elected president of Guatemala because he dared to nationalize the business of the United Fruit Company there, leading to a 40-year civil war. In 2009 the US supported a rightwing coup overthrowing the democratically elected leftwing president of Honduras. And in El Salvador, the US has for decades supported rightwing forces that kept a wealthy elite in power against the interests of the majority of the people.
As you can see, US policy has had much to do with the suffering of these countries and the decision of many residents to emigrate to the US. Isn’t it only fair that we protect those who have braved serious obstacles to come here? But this is illegal, it is argued. Again, let’s look at history. Many of us are lucky enough that our ancestors came to this country before immigration laws and quotas were established. But later, fear of foreigners and racism led to quotas, and in the case of the Chinese, outright exclusion in 1882.
While we are a nation of laws, our laws need to be based on our principles. Are racism and xenophobia principles that should support immigration laws? That is why our council was right to establish a protective ordinance, just as other local jurisdictions around the country are acting to do what is right rather than necessarily what is “legal.” We currently have a president who does not hold the American values of the majority of us, and it is necessary that we act in the interest of what is right and fair.
One final point related to the council’s decision to adopt the ordinance rather than letting it go through a rancorous campaign and a vote of the people :CHARLOTTESVILLE. Need I say more?
(David Turnoy is a retired teacher, author of a young adult history book, and current chair of the San Juan County Democratic Party.)
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
This issue is exceptionally complex and impossible to address in simplistic terms such as halting all immigration. Interestingly, we are all immigrants in this vast land, except for those few whose heritage is Native American. Some folks have ancestors who came to this country hundreds of years ago, and others who may be the first generation to have immigrated here. My family came to this land over 200 years ago from England and Germany. The family of one of my daughters-in-law is from Peru.
This is a vast country. I recently flew over a sizable chunk of the western U.S. and I can state with certainty that there are countless square miles of open space. By comparison, the 300 million folks in Europe live in an area that would equal our states of WA, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
My point is that we can absorb many more immigrants. It is imperative, however that we carefully and wisely manage that growth. Every citizen needs to have a decent home, a meaningful job, and be able to make a positive contribution to the fabric of our society.
I cannot support or see the point of building walls and denying people from around the world who are less fortunate then most Americans, the opportunities that we, or our ancestors experienced in immigrating to this wonderful country.
Nobody should be discussing halting all immigration. That would be inhumane in the extreme.
Good people have been waiting in line for years, in order to come here. This is not the time to turn them away.
Under our current, antiquated immigration laws, people who fear for their lives can even access a short-cut entry process.
But no matter how much space we have in this country for newly arrived immigrants, we should not provide any room at all for immigrants who have arrived here illegally.
Illegal entrants cut in front of the people who are patiently awaiting their turn.
Illegal immigrants start their residence here by perpetrating a crime. That’s not much of a recommendation.
Illegal immigrants come here not because they fear for their lives, but rather for purely economic reasons.
The fact that they have to come here by illegal means reflects very badly upon us and our out-dated immigration laws.
We need to re-institute a process that will permit people to enter here temporarily, looking for employment.
That would solve our illegal-immigration problem quickly, easily, and in a welcoming manner.
In addition to the human element as reflected in David’s article plus comments, I would like to “let’s be real” (practical). Heard on national news this AM that there are an estimated half million plus undocumented residents in the greater Houston area (found additional sources online). Obviously these are workers and residents connected to the community. They will be part of the recovery in the flood area. I suspect that many of them have entry level jobs in construction, landscaping, and such who will be valuable in the recovery. Build a wall? We are going to need more help than is available even now. Welcome. We need to rebuild. Take the useless $$$ for a wall and use it for US, yep, our US country and us our people, documented or not. Don’t even get me started on DACA, the dreamers act.
I don’t know how Mr. Henigson can authoritatively state “Illegal immigrants come here not because they fear for their lives, but rather for purely economic reasons.” Is this based on any research you have done, or is it simply your opinion? I think if you were to tell that to the thousands of Central American parents who have sent their children unaccompanied to try to make it to the US to save those children from gang activity, they would take serious issue with you. If it is a matter of life and death for your own children, would you seriously worry about what is “legal” and what isn’t, especially when these so-called immigration laws are based on xenophobia and racism?
Yes, we need to reform our immigration laws, and anyone who needs refuge should be given such refuge. We live in a world where we all need to take care of each other, and our council has bravely taken action in this regard. Kudos to the folks who organized the ordinance campaign and to our council for doing what is right.
Those folks that have come here without going through the proper immigration process are illegal aliens, not illegal immigrants (they did not immigrate as they skipped the required process). They have committed a crime. Protecting them, as SJ County has decided to do, would seem to me to be ignoring the rule of law in this country. That is not a good thing to be doing, in my view.
But this mess has been going on for a long time so we share in the blame. Laws have not been enforced and have become out dated. There is good reason to demand action from our politicians.
How about asking our congressional delegation to work with all their counterparts in Congress and get something done legislatively? This should not be a Republican, Democrat or Trump issue. Seems to me it is an issue that has remained unsolved through a number political power shifts. So no party gets a free pass on this one.
With proper laws, arrived at through working across party lines, there might be less need for people to come here illegally. Give them a path and process that works and that can be supported by all of us.
In my view, a great deal of fault lies with our politicians.
I think we all agree that there should long ago have been reasonable reform of immigration laws that would have allowed illegal immigrants who have been in this country for years, if not decades, and been making valuable contributions to our communities to become US citizens. I’m thinking of a certain local sawmill operator who many of us know and admire.
But the Other Party has blocked such reform and its Denier in Chief is demanding we spend billions for a symbolic wall. Our only reasonable response to such irresponsibility is to refuse to cooperate with that government when it sends its minions into our midst trying to track down those people, our neighbors. That is what the policies advocated by over 2000 Islanders and adopted by the County Council mainly does.
A few thoughts. It is my understanding that the initiative reflects what was already our policy, which operated to protect affected people while flying under the radar. This action raises the profile of our residents at risk for an administration spiteful enough to arrive and focus on them. I think this also sets a bad precedent. The fact that 1/8 of the population signed an initiative doesn’t mean that it should be able to skip the debate and voting process.