Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts

"No" to Immigrant Bashing

Message from Roy Beck, Executive Director, Numbers USA

The chief difficulties that America faces because of current immigration are not triggered by who the immigrants are but by how many they are.

The task before the nation in setting a fair level of immigration is not about race or some vision of a homogenous white America; it is about protecting and enhancing the United States' unique experiment in democracy for all Americans, including recent immigrants, regardless of their particular ethnicity.

Nothing about this website should be construed as advocating hostile actions or feelings toward immigrant Americans; illegal aliens deserve humane treatment even as they are detected, detained and deported. Unfortunately, to write about problems of immigration is to risk seeming to attack immigrants themselves. Even worse is the risk of inadvertently encouraging somebody else to show hostility toward the foreign-born as a group.

I encounter too many immigrants and children of immigrants in daily affairs where I live in northern Virginia to take those risks lightly. From five continents, members of immigrant families have passed through my home, especially in the persons of friends of my sons. They are among the physical therapy patients of my wife; they are participants in youth activities which I lead; they are friends at my church, which has received national recognition for creating local service to new immigrants; they are neighbors; they are business clerks and owners where I trade.

Thus, as is the case for millions of other Americans, I have a very personal stake in not wanting to provoke hostility or discrimination toward the foreign-born who already are living among us.

But our kindly feelings toward immigrants must no longer stifle public discussion about the effects of immigration numbers.

To talk about changing immigration numbers is to say nothing against the individual immigrants in this country. Rather, it is about deciding how many foreign citizens living in their own countries right now should be allowed to immigrate in the future.

None of this is to suggest that no immigrants are scoundrels or contribute to problems of immigration because of their bad personal behavior. It is not unfair, nor does it constitute immigrant bashing, to criticize the behavior of specific immigrants who violate our laws or otherwise behave in a manner unworthy of guests who have been invited into this country.

It IS immigrant bashing, however, to ascribe those bad characteristics to whole groups of people based on their ethnicity or foreign-born status. All of us should be careful of the language we use so as not to inadvertently appear to be making such negative generalizations.

Not only is it ethically wrong to engage in such stereotyping, it is tactically short-sighted. There is much to suggest that most immigrants already among us would support reductions in immigration numbers. The reasons are not surprising. Virtually any reduction designed to help native-born Americans would be even more beneficial to foreign-born Americans. That is why so many immigrants are supporters of NumbersUSA.com.

Perhaps the greatest "immigrant bashers" are those Members of Congress who refuse to look at the abysmal conditions of so many immigrant Americans and who every year insist on adding more than a million more immigrants into their occupations, schools and communities.

--Based on an essay first published by W.W. Norton & Co. (1996)

An issue for the immigration reform debate

Watch testimony on the unpaid costs to a hospital in Martin County Florida for care given to undocumented immigrants. The area is known to be fairly affluent and includes extensive property dedicated to agriculture. See video at Immigration Watchdog.

Re: Sanctuary City?

The federal government, bloggers and media have recently paid some attention to sanctuary cities. We note that ‘sanctuary city’ status for Corvallis held some appeal for two Corvallis City Councilors last spring as shown in their email exchanges archived in the Corvallis City Council Public E-mail Forum. Recent comments have been posted thus renewing interest in this subject. Here are the conversations found on the public forum so far [in order of date/time stamp, earliest to most recent]:

14 May 2007 16:04:32, Message 11138 - From Stuart Wershow (Ward 6) to Mike Beilstein (Ward 5): Re: Sanctuary City?
Mike,
I have read about sanctuary cities. Did you want to ask the council if we wanted to become one? If yes, we might want to put it on the agenda for the next work session in June. Or, we could ask a group like NAACP to make a proposal. What do you want to do?
Stewart
[Article from Washington Post.com, April 10, 2007 included in-full in Mr. Wershow's post: Looking the Other Way on Immigrants Some Cities Buck Federal Policies]
15 May 2007 15:28:22, Message 11148 - Response from Mike Beilstein to Stuart Wershow: Re: Sanctuary City?
Hello Stewart-
I don't intend to make any proposal to the city council. What I would like to do is to have a public forum on the issue, with input from CPD about current policy on immigration issues. For example, under what circumstances would the department notify Immigration enforcement of a person's undocumented status? Does the CPD ever detain suspects on immigration violation charges? Would Immigration (used to be INS, I think it's ICE now.) be informed if a person presented a fake or fraudulently obtained driver's licence in a traffic stop?

I think CAD, CPF, NAACP, or the Multicultural Literacy Center, or gteh Bill of Rights Defence Committee, or ACLU would be potential sponsors for the forum. The target audience would be both the hispanic community and the "civil rights" advocacy community, in addition to policy makers like city council.

We might eventually want to be a "sanctuary city," but there are probably other less radical steps we could take. Before we do anything we need to examine what the need is. The forum would be a way to start assessing the situation.
Thanks for your intetrest.
Mike Beilstein
15 May 2007 18:57:48, Message 11150 - Stuart Wershow to Mike Beilstein: Re: Sanctuary City?
Mike,
Thanks for the feedback. The Forum will be soon making plans for its next year schedule and I will bring this topic up. Another group to have a involved would be the Cesar Chavez Center on campus. The forum has met with them in the past and I have wanted to go back. I believe CPD will be coming to NAACP in July. We could start the conversation with that meeting.
Stewart
24 Sep 2007 07:09:35 -0700, Message 12164 - Enquiry email from Angelo to War 6: Re: (web)What?
Why in the hell would you openy advocate making Corvallis a sanctuary city? First off, it's wrong on so many moral and ethical levels it's not funny, and secondly..you are asking that Corvallis become a haven and a magnet for people who have no problem breaking laws.

Why would you even suggest this? At the very least, it's a career killer for you and anyone who supports the idea. Think of all of the negative media conerage. Is there anything POSITIVE about being a sanctuary city? I can't think of one.
24 Sep 2007 13:24:59 -0700, Message 12169 - Enquiry email from: Gary to Ward 6: Re: (web)Sanctuary city?
Hi, it's a bad idea. Would one make their house a sanctuary house for criminals? Haven't you seen what happens as a result of sanctuary policies? Thanks.