Staunch traditionalist banter litters the public discourse by maliciously portraying illegal immigrants as freeloading beaners, effectively leading the American public to adopt an “us versus them” mentality. This social complex desecrates the moral standing of a once proud nation and promotes an ethnically intolerant subculture. Groups opposing the presence of undocumented aliens often utilize racially charged language and promote unfounded viewpoints on immigration to drive their prejudiced agenda. Such statements serve to morally debase, and ultimately, physically expel these people from our borders in an effort to restore a predominantly Anglo society. This tribalistic approach to addressing the matter of illegal immigration is masked by claims that undocumented aliens diminish critical social assets, contribute to the dilution of domestic values, and rob naturally born citizens of employment. All such beliefs are synthetically manufactured and can be invalidated through the application of universally accepted social norms and demonstrable fact. This fabrication process reveals that the true motivation for targeted opposition is cultivated by the tradition of division that exists in America. Despite concerns that the aggrandizement of illegal immigration has depleted welfare reserves and other governmental resources, contributed to a disappearance of the American identity, or pilfered jobs from otherwise enterprising citizens, the increasingly common designation of illegal immigration as an issue of the foremost importance has harbored an unreasonably narrow-minded political outlook and yielded a society of xenophobes.
In order to intelligently explore the inaccuracy of oppositional claims, a cognitive understanding of the history of immigration in America and a clear conception of what makes the political relationship between Mexico and the United States so fascinating is necessary. Throughout history, the U.S. has widely been perceived as land of immigrants that welcomed the “tired, poor, huddled masses” seeking political refuge and the prospects of a life based on equality and freedom. In actuality, this reputation was upheld until the executive branch determined that this land of ethnic multiplicity was becoming far too diverse, leading to the passage of the National Origins Quota Act of 1924. This bill dictated that the Immigration Department was only permitted to grant visas to “2% of the number of immigrants from that specific country already residing in the United States” (U.S. Code, 1924). Prior to the 1920s, Anglos hailing from European nations dominated immigration; as a result, legislation effectively prevented otherwise qualified applicants with Latin American origins from attaining U.S. citizenship. Despite significant progress in race relations and international affairs since this legislation, the United States is currently experiencing a massive civilian uprising against undocumented migrants hailing from Mexico. The permeable border and affable political relations that exist between these North American allies was initially recognized with the signing of the Bracero Program in 1942. This measure allowed for Mexican citizens to cross the border and work in the agricultural sector while the majority of the American labor force was entrenched in the war abroad, as a result, popularizing the notion of Hispanic immigrants as fieldworkers in the minds of U.S. citizens. Despite modest policy along the southern border and a publicly cordial diplomatic policy with the Mexican government, the United States maintains strict immigration standards and exacting policies on all foreigners seeking refuge. Such meticulous governmental decrees render it particularly surprising that an estimated twelve million illegal immigrants, overwhelmingly from Hispanic nations, are living and working within our borders today. Public opponents of illegal immigration generally claim that their opposition is based solely on the maintenance of political resources, the perception of an existing national identity, and the U.S. job market. However, a deeper analysis of the American reaction to migration trends reveals racially intolerant and ethnically bigoted citizens that promote malevolent falsehoods as undeniable fact. As a descendent of foreign immigrants and as a lifelong constituent in the nation’s foremost hotbed of illegal immigration, I will provide a critical analysis of the ulterior meanings of public animosity toward Hispanic aliens.
The presence of illegal immigrants in America does not irreversibly deplete welfare services as opponents claim, in turn, uncovering the obscure thinking of oppositional groups. As it stands, five percent of all U.S. citizens receive federal aid, while only one percent of households headed by illegal immigrants receive monetary compensation from the welfare system (Rahman, 2008). Opponents find it absurd that undocumented workers could possibly receive money from a system which they had no part in fortifying by way of federal or state taxes. However, these fears are unfounded given that illegal immigrants cannot receive federal assistance under any circumstance. Rather, households headed by aliens are eligible for governmental funding if it is determined that a U.S. citizen resides within the home and demonstrates need. Aid is only dispersed at an amount deemed reasonable for the eligible citizen and, thus, cannot be considered a reward to immigrants for having children within our borders as opponents fervently argue. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sheds light on this political question:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Congress, 1868).
As stipulated by this governing document, households in which illegal immigrants reside are entitled to receive governmental assistance only in the event that it is verified that the children of illegal immigrants were born in America. It would be unconscionable to think that any American citizen with moral integrity would call for a law denying fellow citizens, especially young children, the monetary support they are legally guaranteed. It is through no fault of these young Americans that they are in a position of need, and to let parsimonious interests interfere with helping those who cannot fend for themselves would be a grave violation of global human rights standards. Furthermore, it must be noted that legal immigrants are not eligible for welfare support until they have paid into the system for ten consecutive years, rendering similar contempt toward these people unjustified. The invalidation of oppositional claims regarding welfare reveals that there must be a deeper significance for such contempt that is not politically motivated, as the public is duped into believing.
Oppositional groups citing the dwindling of educational resources and other public services as justification for their intolerant treatment of immigrants only do so to conceal the more racially charged motives that fuel their hostility. These challenging parties maintain that it is unreasonable for illegal immigrants and their offspring [often U.S. citizens] to have access to hospitals and educational facilities for which they do not financially support. However, denying children medical attention is a clear violation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and calls into question the moral fiber of citizens who value money over the health of fellow humans (United Nations, 1948). These claims, like those regarding welfare, are rendered null by such widely accepted legislation and serve the purpose of disguising the ethnic bigotry that perpetuates a deep-seated hatred of immigrants. Like it or not, the children of undocumented aliens will likely remain within U.S. borders throughout their lifetime, and denying them an education will only cultivate an uneducated and less dynamic American workforce that will harm our economy. In fact, if oppositional concerns are primarily based on economic interests and the lack of federal and state income taxes paid by immigrants, then challengers should welcome the federal reprieve of all migrant workers. Granting amnesty to aliens will require them to pay taxes and the costs of immigration processing that have gone remiss as non-citizens. If opposing parties believe that deporting these undocumented aliens is best, then they must be willing to seriously contradict their convictions about the economic wellbeing of our nation. The tracking efforts and expulsion of some twelve million immigrants would cost hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and incontrovertibly exceed the annual costs incurred by those living in the U.S. unlawfully. The inconsistency of this argument sheds light onto the fact that ulterior motives are the driving force behind this debate. In addition, opponents of illicit immigration falsely subscribe to the belief that anchor babies are tools used by illegal immigrant couples in order to gain citizenship and secure access to the full range of public resources afforded to documented citizens. This is an immense misconception given that, “a U.S. citizen cannot file for a visa on behalf of its parents until age twenty-one, and [can] only [do so] if [the citizen] earns 125% of the American poverty threshold” (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2010). Without doubt, one would have to credit illegal immigrants with incredible foresight and patience in order to justify such outlandish claims. In effect, the contradictory nature of these assertions conceals the true desire of challengers to cleanse the Hispanic stain on the ethnic fabric of America.
While oppositional groups argue that the presence of illegal immigrants contributes to the disappearance of the American identity, this position illuminates the truly racist nature of their claims by way of contradiction. In theory, granting amnesty to these aliens will have a positive effect on our cultural identity because, “Americans have defined themselves not by racial, religious, [or] ethnic identity, but by their common values and belief in individual freedom” (Wilkinson, 2010). Few scholars could effectively argue that hard work and the establishment of a better life for one’s families are not integral components of the lives of both U.S. citizens and immigrants alike. It is undeniable that migrants from all nations, especially those from Mexico and other Latin American countries, come to America seeking escape from existential economic threat and freedom from ethnic or religious persecution. In fact, such a struggle mirrors the migration of the Anglo-Americans throughout the 1800s and uncovers the obvious reality that there is no American ethnicity. There are no American-blooded citizens except Native Americans, in which case, the white settlers that stole this national identity also murdered your ancestors without shame. As the great Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “Remember, remember always that all of us, you and I especially, are descended from immigrants,” in turn, promoting the equality that is expected of a nation strengthened by settlers (Roosevelt, 1938). The simple fact that some citizens’ ancestors came from a nation of Anglos and spoke English makes them no better than the tan-skinned, Spanish-speaking immigrants that currently seek refuge in the United States. The conservative banter that floods national airwaves causes some citizens to view illegal immigration through a Mexico against America lens instead of realizing that there are also English-speaking immigrants from Anglo nations as well. In effect, these revelations render widespread judgment toward immigrant groups unjustified and the embodiment of an “us versus them” attitude. As evidenced by the contradictory nature of oppositional claims, permitting illegal aliens to become fully recognized citizens will reinforce the American identity to a considerable degree. In turn, it becomes clear that immigrant opposition based on the dilution of the native spirit is a false front for the racial bigotry that incites some Americans to seek the elimination of these physically and linguistically unique people.
Challengers falsely contend that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from U.S. citizens, a claim that is predicated on the positive relationship that exists between the declining economy and mounting opposition toward Hispanic immigrants. In reality, officials endorsing these views do not literally mean that Hispanics are stealing their personal livelihoods. Instead, these citizens posit that Mexican immigrants are taking jobs away from their American brethren in industries that typically require manual labor. This distinction is significant if one hopes to fully comprehend the “us versus them” mentality assumed by those opposed to the presence of illegal immigrants in America. The fact remains that undocumented aliens generally work in agriculture, construction, and cleaning sectors, often performing undesirable tasks at a pay rate that the clear majority of Americans would not consent to. Nonetheless, citizens continue to promote fictitious claims that Mexican natives are stealing jobs from Americans, while refusing to acknowledge the appalling workplace conditions employees are subjected to. In any case, common business sense would hypothesize that if foreign workers are taking employment opportunities from U.S. citizens, perhaps it is based on the reality that they perform the job in a superior manner and at a cheaper rate. For those citizens that oppose such facts, the United Farm Workers Association has invited you to take their agricultural work. Under the direction of Arturo Rodriguez, http://takeourjobs.org has provided Americans with immediate job training and placement under typical working conditions. Given the elevated national unemployment rate and persistent claims that illegal immigrants should be deported because they are taking jobs away from hard-working Americans, one would expect a substantial amount of applicants. 1,000? 5,000? 10,000? Despite conventional wisdom pointing toward a total well within this range, only sixteen citizens have filled out the application and came to work under the direction of the UFW. The lack of citizens willing to accept an unconditional job offer in this struggling economy highlights the American elitism that falsely portrays undocumented aliens as stealing jobs. This Anglo ostentation leads to a blemished public view of immigrants, legal and illegal, and casts a shadow of racial discrimination over a once open-minded nation. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that immigrants do not take jobs from Americans, but rather, that immigrants service crucial sectors and provide for domestic and international food supplies, major U.S. construction developments, and critical sanitation services. The general public must investigate these habitually perpetuated fictitious claims and recognize that such deep-seated racial bigotry holds significant consequences for the future of our nation.
Driving out the twelve million illegal immigrants living within our borders has no logical utility, as errant supporting “facts” are really a false front that masks the fear and racism embodied by xenophobic Americans. The Civil Defense Corp that has banded together to protect the border is an outrage to any citizen concerned with racial impartiality and their actions should no longer be tolerated. Minutemen arm themselves and patrol the border with the intent of deterring illegal immigration by detaining, and in some cases, firing shots at any dark-skinned figure seen near the border. Essentially, members of this group assert that because governmental officials and political bodies will not respond to requests for a strengthened border, they are taking the law into their own hands and acting as border patrol agents. Aside from the moral arguments against this indubitably radical behavior, it is quite menacing to harbor an armed militia that roams border cities and jeopardizes the safety of suspected unlawful immigrants and native citizens of Hispanic decent alike. It has never been legally acceptable for citizens to step into a position of political significance that holds lives in the balance when they think the government is not acting as it should, so why is it allowed in regard to illegal immigration? Citizens are not permitted to impersonate police officers because they feel they are not adequately addressing an issue of public concern. Similarly, citizens cannot raid a suspected drug dealer’s house with tear gas, a shotgun, and explosives because they believe the SWAT team has failed to act sufficiently. Although these examples may seem outrageous, they serve to illustrate that these astoundingly bigoted minutemen embody the racist viewpoints that lie at the heart of this debate. It is amazing to this student of political science that activities bearing such a striking resemblance to the southern lynch mobs of the 1950s, albeit with a less substantial death toll, are not illegal on some very basic level. Nonetheless, it is clear that the intense tribalistic mentality assumed by this oppositional party shines through any ulterior motives they claim to be servicing.
In addition to the fanatical beliefs and dogmatic actions of these so-called sheriffs, skin color must also be evaluated when it comes to the opponents of illegal immigration and their call for widespread deportation. I assert that far fewer people would be concerned with illegal immigration if those crossing the border were fair-skinned doctors, professors, and teachers that spoke perfect English. This debate is not as much an issue with principle as it is of inherent fear of the Mexican people and a culture that Americans typically do not understand. Granting amnesty to the twelve million illegal workers that currently reside in the United States has been mulled over by several political bodies, much to the aversion of hostile opponents. The most stalwart resistance groups assert that if the government was to reward these lawbreakers with amnesty, or if it maintains the status quo by not punishing illegal immigrants, a criminal culture would be cultivated as a result. This circular logic is astounding on many levels, but is of particular interest in its holding that the non-punishment of lawbreakers will promote an unscrupulous society of felons. The majority of these immigrants are hardworking people who are only guilty of daring to dream of a better life for themselves and their children. Opponents of amnesty break laws on a daily basis that include, but are not limited to, speeding, jaywalking, illegally downloading music, drinking underage, talking on cell phones while driving, failing to report all income on tax forms, and failing to pay child support. The lacking punishment of these offenders has not fundamentally turned all such “criminals” into vindictive convicts, so why would the same theory hold true for Hispanic immigrants? This fundamentally inconsistent line of reasoning points to the conclusion that opponents of illegal immigration do not, in reality, have immense concern for the issues they vocalize most fervently. Instead, they fear the presence of a race that look and sound dissimilar from what they believe to be the proper American. Indeed, there is little substantive action that can dispel the inherent racism and xenophobia that personifies American elitists and time will determine whether we have truly outgrown our past vices and if now we shall overcome the racial discrimination that haunts us.
Form I-864 P, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (2010). Print.
“14th Amendment.” The U.S. Constitution Online. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14>.
National Origins Quota Act of 1924, XLII United States Code § 185 (LexisNexis 2010). Print.
Rahman, Mizanur. “Fact or Fiction?” Illegal Immigrants on Welfare. 25 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2008/01/post_80.html>.
Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Immigrants.” Daughters of the American Revolution. Washington D.C. 21 Apr. 1938. Speech.
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml>.
Wilkinson, Will. “The American People and the Politics of American Identity.” Will Wilkinson Blog. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Oct. 2010. <http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2010/09/01/the-american-people-and-the-politics-of-american-identity/>.