Your Ancestors Were "Legal"? - Probably Not

(This image of Ellis Island in 1924 is from theatlantic.com.)

It's a fairly common refrain, especially from xenophobic right-wingers, to say that yes, their ancestors were immigrants, but they were "legal" immigrants. That is a rather ludicrous claim, since they most likely got no permission to enter this country at all. That's because, for much of our history, there was no "legal" or "illegal" immigration. Anyone who wanted to come just came. It was not until the 1920's that any limit was set on immigration at all (with the exception of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act). Here is a quick run-down of our immigration history from Associate Professor Ben Railton of Fitchburg State University from talkingpointsmemo.com:

I guarantee you’ll hear the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” in the aftermath of President Obama’s immigration address. It’s almost impossible to find any conversation about immigration—between elected officials, pundits, online commenters—in which at least one participant doesn’t use the phrase. It’s an understandable position, through which the speaker can both defend his or her family history and critique current illegal immigrants who choose to do things differently. It helps deflect charges of hypocrisy (since most Americans are descended from immigrants). It’s hard to argue with. And it’s also, in nearly every case, entirely inaccurate.

Prior to 1875’s Page Act and 1882’s Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no national immigration laws. None. There were laws related to naturalization and citizenship, to how vessels reported their passengers, to banning the slave trade. Once New York’s Castle Garden Immigration Station opened in 1855, arrivals there reported names and origins before entering the U.S. But for all pre-1875 immigrants, no laws applied to their arrival. They weren’t legal or illegal; they were just immigrants.

Moreover, those two laws and their extensions affected only very specific immigrant communities: suspected prostitutes and criminals (the Page Act); Chinese arrivals (the Exclusion Act); immigrants from a few other Asian nations (the extensions). So if your ancestors came before the 1920s and weren’t prostitutes, criminals, or from one of those Asian nations, they remained unaffected by any laws, and so were still neither legal nor illegal. This might seem like a semantic distinction, but it’s much more; the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” implies that they “chose to follow the law,” yet none of these unaffected immigrants had to make any such choice, nor had any laws to follow.

The 1892 opening of Ellis Island didn’t change these fundamental realities. Ellis arrivals had to wait in line and answer a list of questions, and could be quarantined if they had a communicable disease or were visibly insane. But if they weren’t in those aforementioned few illegal categories, they still weren’t affected by any law, made no choice of how to immigrate. Moreover, many arrivals during this period came not through Ellis but across the borders, which were unpatrolled and open.

Only with the 1920s Quota Acts did Congress establish national immigration laws encompassing most arrivals. But those acts were overtly discriminatory, extending the Exclusion Act’s principles by categorizing arrivals by nationality and drastically limiting certain groups; South Carolina Senator Ellison Smith put it bluntly: “It seems to me the point as to this measure is that the time has arrived when we should shut the door.” Since immigrants had no control over their nationality, it’s difficult to argue that post-1920s arrivals “chose” to immigrate legally or illegally. And since the borders remained largely open and there were multiple entry points, it’s hard to say that any individual arrival was under the quota and thus legal or illegal.

The 1965 Immigration Act ended national quotas, instituting preferences based on less overtly discriminatory categories such as family connections and educational/professional training. Subsequent laws (such as the 1986 IRCA) further adjusted national policy. But as the ubiquitous “my ancestors” phrase proves, current immigration debates aren’t just about present policies—they’re always informed by ideas about history, and specifically about legal and illegal immigration in our past. So it’s vitally important that we begin to use those terms accurately—to recognize that for so many of us, our ancestors were neither legal nor illegal immigrants. That they came in the same way contemporary undocumented immigrants do: by crossing a border.

Conflicting Republican Policies

Two of the policies that Republicans love the most are a hatred of undocumented immigrants (and the wish to deport those here and prevent others from entering) and the denial of global climate change (because to admit it is real would force them to take action to rein in the excesses of their rich buddies in the oil, gas, coal and power-generating industries). This is why they are going to great lengths to prevent both immigration and energy reform.

But trying to push both of these policies at the same time is a little like trying to have a cake and eat it at the same time -- the two things are conflicting interests. Consider the following report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences regarding the link between global climate change and illegal immigration.

According to the scientists, global climate change is going to keep getting steadily worse in the coming years as the level of the oceans rise and many countries will experience severe drought. One of the worst hit countries to experience these climate changes will be our neighbor to the south, Mexico. Many of the rural inhabitants of Mexico will no longer be able to support themselves as Mexican agriculture becomes untenable.

So what will these people do? They will do just as their fellow countrymen in the past have done. They will come to the United States to find a way to survive and feed their families. The scientists are predicting that in the next fifty years the U.S. will see an influx of possibly 6.7 million more undocumented immigrants (possibly even as much as 10% of the Mexican population).

Now I know some will claim we just have to close down the border with Mexico. That's a lot easier to say than it would be to do. It would take a massive amount of police, immigration officials and troops to even try to shut down the border between the two countries. Even then I'm not at all sure it could be done. The border covers thousands of miles, and that doesn't even consider our two enormous coastlines (and an even bigger and even easier to cross border with Canada).

Don't underestimate the persistence and ingenuity of desperate people. People will go to great lengths to feed, clothe and house their families -- regardless of what the laws are or how many people there are enforcing it. If the global climate change gets bad enough, we would have to turn this country into a police state to even begin to control the illegal immigration (and while that would do away with many of our freedoms, it probably wouldn't keep the immigrants out).

The only real solution is to stop denying the reality of global climate change and quickly take action to reduce our use of carbon-based fuels and reverse the dumping of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. If we could slow down and then stop the climate change before it reaches a critical level (which it is fast approaching), then the situation in Mexico might not reach a level that would force millions of new immigrants over the border.

But to do that the Republicans would first have to admit that they are wrong. I'm not even sure that is possible. They have proved unable to admit their errors in the past. Just look at the disastrous policies of George Bush that wrecked the American economy. Republicans are still pushing those same policies even though it's obvious to any thinking person that those policies would still be disastrous to our feebly-recovering economy.

No, the Republicans are currently unable to admit they were (and are) wrong. That is why they must be prevented from returning to power -- at least until they develop new leadership that's willing to deal with the real world (and that could take a long time). For the time-being they will blissfully carry on, unable to even realize that their own policies are unrealistic and actually conflicting.

Arizona Considering Unconstitutional Law

When people get scared, they become much more willing to give up their rights for a perceived safer world, and it looks like that is what's happening in Arizona. The right-wingers in the Republican Party have been demonizing immigrants for several years now -- especially those with a darker skin color, and Arizonans seem to be buying the racism the party is selling them.

The Arizona House of Representatives has just passed a bill, supposedly to fight illegal immigration. The bill is expected to also be passed by the senate and signed by the governor. The bill would forbid any city to adopt a "sanctuary" policy which would restrict police and social service workers from enforcing immigration laws. It would also expose drivers to sanctions if they knowingly transport an illegal alien -- even a family member.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect of the new law is the power it gives police to stop anyone and demand to see paperwork showing they are in the United States legally. Anyone without that paperwork could be arrested. I remember during the days when the Soviet Union was in existence, one of the differences between that country and America was the requirement to carry identity papers which could be demanded by police at any time.

The only identification that a citizen of the United States has been required to carry is a driver's license, and then only when driving. It has always been a mark of our freedom that we are not required to carry identification. It seems strange to me that the party that claims to be upholding our freedoms and our Constitution would be the party to take away some of that freedom -- the Republicans. I guess they can't be both the party of freedom and the party of fear at the same time, and they've chosen fear.

Of course, this law will almost force the police to engage in racial profiling (unless they plan to stop every citizen and demand to see their papers). No, I expect this will only happen to Hispanics -- many of them American citizens. This has to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it creates a law aimed at only one class or race of people. It is simply wrong for Hispanics to be singled out to be harassed in this manner.

I think the law is also unconstitutional in a different way. Just a few years ago, an African-American man liked to take walks through a high-class suburb of San Francisco. He was repeatedly stopped and arrested by the suburban police because he did not carry any identification, although he always told them his true name and address and cooperated with them. He just believed that in America a man had the right to walk on public property anywhere without carrying identity papers.

He finally became angry with the continued harassment and sued the suburb. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and the court found the suburban community's police had violated the man's rights. They found that there was no requirement for an American to carry identity papers, and since the man cooperated and gave them his name and address, he should not have been arrested.

This Arizona bill is trying to do the same thing the suburban police had tried to do -- require American citizens to carry identity papers. It is wrong and should be quickly nullified by the courts.

I have nothing against the requirement to carry a driver's license when driving, but I have no desire to live in a state or country where I have to carry identity papers (such as pictured above) anytime I go out in public. That is just like an old-style East European police state, and cannot be tolerated in a truly free country.

It all boils down to one question. Do we want to live in a free country, or are we so fearful that we are willing to give up more of our freedoms? Personally, I choose to live in a free country.

Farmers Branch Begins To Back Down

It looks like Farmers Branch officials are beginning to realize they passed an unconstitutional law when they banned the rental of apartments to immigrants without a green card. Sensing that U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay was about to rule their new law violated the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for Farmers Branch have offered up some "compromises", and asked the judge to choose among them.

In issuing his restraining order on May 21, the judge had written that "the city has attempted to regulate immigration in violation of the U.S. Constitution."

They city has offered three alternatives to the judge. One would simply cut out any reference to U.S. Housing and Urban Development's prohibition on providing housing to illegal immigrants (it was determined that HUD's rules would also apply to many people who were in the country legally).

Another alternative would be to drop the $500-a-day penalty on landlords and eliminate the need to provide paperwork proving a renter was a citizen. It would however force renters to sign a document declaring they were legal immigrants.

The third alternative would eliminate the $500-a-day penalty and the need to sign a document, but would force renters to provide documentation showing they were legal immigrants. These alternatives would still allow the city to pursue renters for "fraud".

Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (one of the groups suing the city) did not think the city's compromises were legally proper. She said, "That's not an appropriate thing for a judge to do. The judge decides what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. The judge does not rewrite ordinances."

Ms. Perales is right. The city has stepped in a large pile of racist crap, and now they want the judge to pull them out of it. But that is not his job. His job is simply to point out the smelly nature of what they've stepped into -- it's their job to get out of it and clean their boots.

I suspect the city officials don't know how to write a constitutional ordinance. If so, they should resign. Their racist ordinance is unconstitutional, and this judge is fixing to tell them that. I hope the humiliation will be enough to keep them from pursuing further bigoted actions.

Border Crackdown Is Smuggler's Dream

Recently, the United States has tightened security on its southern border. More Border Patrol agents have been assigned to the border, along with hundreds of National Guard troops. Fences cover some parts of the border, and new electronic equipment and cameras have been installed.

But what is the result of the border crackdown? In terms of keeping undocumented immigrants out of the United States, it's not very effective. The immigrants keep coming, and will do so as long as there are jobs to be had in this country.

But it has been a real financial boon for one group -- the smugglers. That's right. The biggest effect of the border crackdown has been to help the criminals who profit from smuggling people into this country. These smugglers charge around $1500 for each person they help to enter the U.S., and their business has never been better.

A Mexican-government funded research institution, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, has been conducting surveys about the border crossings for years. They interviewed those who had been caught by Border Patrol and kicked out, and those who had been successful but returned to Mexico. Their survey was analyzed by the Associated Press.

The AP learned that while the illegal immigrants keep coming, the number who hire a smuggler to get them across has increased as border security increased. Here are the percentages of those who hired a smuggler:

2000..........16%
2003..........20%
2005..........47%

The money we are spending to stop illegal immigration is not keeping people from entering our country illegally. But it has increased the business of smugglers by threefold. Surely, this is not the desired result!

The fact remains that as long as there are jobs for the immigrants in this country, they will keep coming. If we really want to stem the flow of undocumented workers, we must crack down on the employers -- not the border.

Until then, we are just fattening the wallets of the smugglers.