An Editorial Review...

“Fixing Immigration, In Principle” is an editorial from The New York Times dated January 30, 2014 and credited to The Editorial Board.  The Editorial Board is a diverse group of 19 highly educated professionals whose backgrounds, specialties, and experience are quite varied, and whose opinions ultimately reflect those of the editor, Andrew Rosenthal, and the publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr.  I found this article interesting for a couple of reasons.  One reason is because some of my responsibilities in Human Resources are to ensure proper identification is provided to verify employment eligibility. 

Another reason is because of some conversations I have heard regarding illegal immigration, particularly when Arizona enacted their tough immigration law.  Although crowds of minorities marched in Austin and students organized school walk-outs, I was in favor of the Arizona Immigration Law.  Living and working in Texas I began to hear stories of people who paid upwards of $4000 to human smugglers referred to as “coyotes” to come into the U.S. to live and work illegally.  They would live here and work and send money to their families who remained outside of the U.S.  Then after a few years, they would leave for a brief visit with their families and before long they once again pay their coyote to come back and do it all again.  It frustrates me because I don’t understand why they can save that amount of money to be smuggled in illegally but they can’t follow the legal process for residency and citizenship.  It also frustrated me to see these minority marches and school walk-outs because it seems like they are fighting for their right to ignore and break the law and refuting the government’s right to enforce the law. 

The views in this editorial are very liberal and support allowing illegal immigrants and their children to remain and become legal citizens with little to no consequences of their originally illegal status, because to do otherwise is “not the American way.”  I do not agree or accept that rationale because our government must be willing and able to enforce all of our laws for our society to continue.  If people want laws to change, then it is our responsibility to elect government officials who make changing those laws a priority.  However, the editorial also comments on some of the proposed enforcement measures that “have no place in any bill” because they are “an invitation to racial profiling and other abuses.”  I do agree with this statement.  We are a diverse society, often called a melting-pot, and racial profiling should never be part of law enforcement.  I do not support accosting someone to verify their legal status based on race.  But requiring employers to maintain E-verify records and making legal status checks standard for all who are detained or arrested for probable cause seem like reasonable enforcement measures.   I believe it should not be so difficult to find a reasonable middle ground to this issue.  Should current illegal immigrants whose only crime is their legal status be allowed to earn American citizenship?  I think yes.  Should they face some type of consequence, whether financial or limited jail time?  I think yes.  Should they be deported?  Not if they are willing to follow the legal process.  However, if they have committed other crimes, or if they are here to escape prosecution from another country, they should be deported and any residency or citizenship blocked.  Even to me my views seem like an oversimplification of the issue, so there are probably a lot more factors to consider that I have not mentioned.  Congress needs to work together to come to a middle ground and stop trying to win an all or nothing game for the good of everyone and not just one group of people.