There is an Op-Ed piece about immigration in the New York Times today - written by Mark Lange - a former presidential speechwriter. Most of what he says sounds sympathetic - but I have to remind myself that he was a speech writer for Bush Sr... before I get too angry...
He says that the U.S. will create an underclass if immigration reform does happen. Yet as so many other are doing, He sees things so black and white he could be George Bush.
Here is one statement:
"we sould sanction Mexican-American" welfare receipts twice those of natives." --- if this person is so intelligent that the NY Times can publish his essay, then why doesn't he have the sense to realize that many Mexican Americans are U.S. citizens and have been here for generations. Can a person of Mexican descent be a "native?"
By doing this he is turning a blind eye to those who can vote - even the former brain of the White House (Rove) knew that the Latino vote can significantly affect 2007. Most Latinos have the right to vote, many have educations... he forgets that it is this population that maybe end up being the best advocate for undocumented immigrants. Once voting, they will remember how their undocumented cousin or nephew or neighbor were treated. This could be devastating for the Republican Party.
The second comment he made that I find outrageous - In 1954, when illegal Latino immigration was twice what it is now, a manageable number of deportations motivated the majority to repatriate."
Where did this guy get this information. Think of what he means when he writes "a manageable number of deportations motivated the majority to repatriate."
Is this it? Don't force them to go, scare them enough and they will all leave. For one, he needs to read a few scholarly books and articles on immigration in the 1950s. He's dead wrong.... there was NEVER "immigration what it is now" And believe me the majority DID NOT repatriate.
The New York Times should do some background research before it publishes erroneous material. Now I remember that when I'm looking for information for this blog, I rarely search the New York Times...
----
Op-Ed Contributor
Immigrants’ Labors Lost
By MARK LANGE
Published: September 3, 2007
San Francisco
IMAGINE we wanted to create a huge Latino underclass in this country. We would induce more than 500,000 illegal immigrants to enter annually. We would see Latinos account for half of America’s population growth. We would turn a hardened eye toward all 44 million Latinos, because 12 million jumped our borders to meet our labor demand.
We would financially motivate but morally deplore illegal immigrants’ determination to break our laws and risk their lives to work for us. We would let nativist, xenophobic amnesiacs pillory the roughly 25 percent of Latinos who were here illegally, at the expense of the 75 percent who were legal. CNN and Fox News would reduce Latinos to fodder for fear-mongering, and the documentariat would make them objects of pity, when they wanted and warranted neither.
We would know that if we paid them, they would come, but we would offer no legitimate employment. We would adopt a let’s-pretend labor policy in our fields, yards, factories and restaurants, and for child care, construction and cleaning, with a wage fakery worthy of the Soviet Union. There, the joke was “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” Here they would work, hard — and we would pay them, sort of, but pretend not to, denying ourselves the future tax revenue needed to pay for services we faulted them for needing.
We would ensure that the education system failed them, lamenting a dropout rate more than twice that of blacks and four times that of whites. Keeping incomes impossibly low, we would sanction Mexican-American welfare receipts twice those of natives. We would let the states launch loads of legislative half-fixes. We would have the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Homeland Security Department start an “even tougher” and more futile paper chase. We would see desperate workers fake new Social Security numbers or go underground for the next boss seeking this shabby labor discount.
We do all of this — and let it cost us more as a country — because it is a little cheaper for us as individuals and employers. And whether we knew it or not, we are deliberately fencing in our own economy.
It is in our self-interest to support labor mobility, development and advancement. Growth in productivity, fundamentally, is how we raise everyone’s standard of living. It starts with the first rung.
...Let nobody’s status be “adjusted” or “granted.” Instead, have employers sponsor anyone on their shadow payrolls to apply for a tamper-proof holographic guest worker card. Deport, adequately south of the border, anyone not sponsored. That won’t mean all 12 million. In 1954, when illegal Latino immigration was twice what it is now, a manageable number of deportations motivated the majority to repatriate...
for complete article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/opinion/03lange.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
cartoon: http://www.movieforums.com/gummly/cartoon_matt.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment