Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas, is a devoted foe of illegal immigration. While he has generated considerable acrimony among certain groups his approach seems to be worthy of consideration.
Rather than focusing on something like building a wall, Kobach has taken a strategic approach to the problem by addressing the factors that motivate illegal immigration. To be specific, his intent seems to be to use legal means to deny illegal immigrants access to schools, jobs, housing and citizenship for their children who are born here.
One one hand, the approach seems to both effective and reasonable. In terms of the effectiveness, if illegal immigrants are denied access to what has drawn them to America, then they will no longer have reasons to come here or remain here. This would, of course, decrease the number of people attempting to enter and remain in the United States illegally.
In terms of the reasonableness, given that illegal immigrants are in the country illegally, it would certainly seem reasonable to conclude that they are not entitled to the goods and services that are provided by the tax payers. To use an analogy, someone who breaks into my house is clearly not entitled to be there nor is he entitled to avail himself to my food, shower and TV.
It might be replied that someone who needs shelter and food has the right to break into my house and take my property. Likewise, people who need education, jobs, and so on have the right to enter America illegally and help themselves to what they need.
While it can be argued that those in extreme duress have the right to take what they need, this usually requires that they are being unjustly denied what they truly need and that there is not a viable alternative. In the case of illegal immigration, a case can probably be made in many cases for duress. It could even be argued that the duress could have been caused, in part, by past actions of the United States. Going back to the house analogy, if my actions put someone into duress, perhaps they would be justified in breaking into my house to secure food and shelter.
However, it can also be argued that the illegal immigrants are not under enough duress to justify their illegal activities. It could also be argued that the illegal immigrants do have viable alternatives, such as getting what they need in their own country. They could, it might be argued, spend their time making their own countries better rather than going to the United States to avail themselves of better opportunities. Less harshly, it could be pointed out that the United States has legal channels of immigration as well as legal means by which people can acquire education and jobs in America. After all, America’s schools have significant numbers of students from other countries who are here legally and there are many people who work here quite legally.
True, the legal channels could be improved and streamlined. However, they do exist and do not seem to be onerous beyond reason. As such, it seems reasonable to expect people to use these channels. To use an analogy, if someone can acquire food and shelter via legal means and without breaking into my house, then they would seem to have little right to claim access to my house.
That said, there are some legitimate concerns about Kobach’s approach. Obviously enough we do not want to act unjustly or open opportunities for serious misuses of the legal apparatus. As such, Kobach’s crusade should be properly assessed lest he be allowed to err on the side of injustice. Also of considerable concern are what others are doing and might do with the tools provided by Kobach.
Hmm.
I’m a proponent of open immigration with sensible caveats, such as not accepting dangerous criminals.
America was, after all, strengthened by every wave of immigration we experienced up through WWII; the human resource of a country is exactly that, a resource.
Hence, I think we should welcome everyone who wants to come here to contribute their work, intelligence, and perspective.
There is, however, an elephant in the room: Social welfare. The kind of social welfare we have now was not around back when America was being strengthened by its immigrants, and this is a key point. Nowadays — and solely because of our welfare programs — illegal immigration bleeds our state and federal resources, and that hemorrhage constitutes a social evil for the rest of us.
Now, I think that our welfare programs are a good thing; getting rid of them would be another social harm. Instead, I think the appropriate response to America’s current situation is to grant only a kind of resident status to immigrants — one that does not include rights that should belong only to a citizen, such as suffrage and access to welfare — until they demonstrate that they have become productive members of society (such as passing a certain income threshold). This would, however, require that we no longer naturalize through birth on US soil, instead using the citizenship of the parents as the criteria for the citizenship of the child.
I’m not sure how much it costs us to provide services to illegals (is it the equivalent of one missile, one tank, one plane or more…). However, these are costs that we should not bear-aside from those required by human decency (for example, life saving efforts).
Ideally, we should streamline the citizenship process while making it contingent on employment, military service and so on. Of course, it does seem a bit off that even if a person is a dumb@ass deadbeat they get to be a citizen by being born the right way and that foreign folks have to really earn it. But, I suppose it could argued that it works like family.
This is a difficult subject with few clear answers. However, many illegal immigrants are here because in their home countries, they do not have adequate means to support themselves. Many feel that they have no choice but to immigrate illegally so that they can send money back to their families. They also lack the influence to improve conditions in their own countries.
Some U.S. policies have made conditions worse in Mexico, which is the major source of illegal immigrants. According to what I’ve read, our foreign and trade policies tend to have detrimental effects on the Mexican economy. That said, probably a much greater problem is the endemic corruption in Mexico and countries south of Mexico.
I shall refrain from posing solutions, but we must recognize that many illegal immigrants are desperate and feel that they have no choice.
“I shall refrain from posing solutions, but we must recognize that many illegal immigrants are desperate and feel that they have no choice.”
I agree that there is no need to vilify illegal immigration; the motivation is easy to understand and sympathize with.
However, the responsibility of the US government is to its existing citizens; if our best interests and the interests of others come into conflict, it is the duty of the government to attend to our interests first and only then to the interests of foreign countries and their respective citizens.
In many ways I find this regrettable (I would welcome a confederated world government simply to avoid such things), but the ethics of the situation appear clear-cut.
It’s unfortunate for the indigenous Americans that they did not understand and enforce what you have stated in your third paragraph.
Indeed; it’s a bit like a prisoner’s dilemma, isn’t it?