In an interesting article in Time last week, Nathan Thornburgh discussed the irrational fear of the "a" word - amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
The word amnesty seems to invoke an unreasonably negative reaction from Americans. On the right, conservatives seem to believe that immigration from Latin America is changing the racial makeup of the country and threatening our way of life. The first is true; current trends indicate that by 2020 Latinos will make up nearly a quarter of the United States youth population. But, as Thornburgh points out, fear of a change in lifestyle due to immigration is irrational.
Assimilation is slow, but it is inevitable. Beardstown was settled in the 19th century by unapologetically German immigrants, but you won't hear so much as a gesundheit uttered there today. What is lacking, in Beardstown as in Washington, is faith in America's undimmed ability to metabolize immigrants from around the world, to change them more than they change the U.S.
Continued after the fold.
Conservatives aren't the only ones afraid of amnesty; many liberals fear that amnesty would have negative economic consequences for working class Americans. Not so, says the author:
Economic anxiety animates much of the resistance to amnesty, particularly from the left. Real wages have been stagnant for nearly three decades throughout the U.S., and for a place like working-class Beardstown, having to deal with a huge new influx of Spanish-speaking workers seems like adding insult to economic injury. But if times are tough in rural America, are illegal immigrants to blame? It turns out that the truly good jobs left Beardstown long before the Mexicans came. In the mid-'80s, the Cargill plant was owned by Oscar Mayer. Walters was the union representative at the plant back then, and he says it offered good jobs and good benefits, but globalization and other corporate pressures caught up with them. The company shuttered and sold the plant in 1987. Five months later, it reopened under a new owner, with lower wages and fewer benefits.
Undocumented immigrants have, in many ways, become the scapegoat for low and stagnant wages in the United States. But such immigrants are victims themselves; employers exploit them for cheap labor, knowing well that such workers have no recourse in the American justice system because they are seen as outlaws. The real culprit here seems to be the demand from American businesses for increased production for lower wages.
Placing the bottom line before human dignity has been the driving force of globalization for years. American jobs began to falter long before Latino immigrants began crossing the border into the U.S. The reverse of the right wing talking point is true; illegal immigration did not cause loss of American jobs, loss of American jobs caused illegal immigration. Once American companies discovered that a plethora of cheap labor awaited them in countries with economic hardships, well-paying entry-level and working class jobs in the United States started to disappear. Some argue that globalization is good for developing nations, that sweatshop jobs pay more than pre-existing jobs in those countries. However, the actions of these companies is the textbook definition of exploitation. They have taken advantages of hardship in Latin America and many other area of the world.
So one should understand that when a Mexican family crosses the border illegally to escape from American-run maquiladoras, we should understand that we, as American consumers, have a share in the responsibility for their need to enter the U.S. at any cost. That's why amnesty is a step forward not only for undocumented immigrants, but also for the American consumer's recognition that globalization has negatively affected the lives of millions of human beings.
People fear that amnesty would encourage more immigrants to cross the border illegally. This claim is egocentric. American legislation and policy does not encourage or discourage Latinos from entering the U.S. Such a decision is the result of conditions within an immigrant's country of origin. And if we truly wish to control the number of immigrants entering the United States, we have to examine how we can help improve conditions in Latin American countries. Keep in mind that many Latino immigrants are refugees of U.S.-supported dictators like Augusto Pinochet.
The type of immigration legislation being tinkered with in Congress right now is a compromise. The positive is that it might potentially lead to the legalization of all undocumented immigrants living in the United States. The negative is that it establishes Draconian penalties for so-called "crimes" that any other American would have gladly committed in order to ensure a better life for his or her family.
We recognize so many Cuban immigrants as refugees from Castro's authoritarian regime. Why is it that we have so much trouble opening our eyes to the fact that a dictator is still a dictator even if he is not a communist. Right-wing regimes in bed with American companies have damaged the lives of millions of Latin Americans. We, as Americans, should be opening our arms to these people, not sending them back into the poor conditions that we helped to create.
That's why amnesty must be the start to any new immigration policy.