Amnesty to illegal immigrants: not fair

By James Tait

In last week's The Santa Clara article, "Protesters march on Benson," junior Maria Ochoa was quoted as saying, "Just because we're immigrants doesn't mean we're not equal." Unfortunately for Ms. Ochoa, that's exactly what it means to be an illegal immigrant.

While we try to dress up illegal immigrants' status with politically correct terms such as "undocumented worker," the reality is that they are foreign nationals who have unlawfully taken up residence in this country. As such, they enjoy no legal or constitutional protections in this society. In other words, they are not equal.

It's absurd to argue that a foreign national illegally residing in this country deserves amnesty. Hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants patiently wait through the lengthy naturalization process. To reward those who disrespect our laws and cut the line is unfair and unjust.

While the naturalization process is in need of streamlining and reform, that does not mean that foreign nationals have the right to decide for themselves that they are above the system. To do so, and then to have the gall to demand a special handout in the form of amnesty, is simply insulting.

The argument has been made that illegal immigration is a human rights issue; poverty is so prevalent in Mexico that a Mexican citizen cannot live there in dignified conditions. While I'm certainly sympathetic to the plight of Mexico's poor, I fail to see why that's the problem of the United States and not Mexico. Is being born in the developing world the only criterion for determining who takes up residence in our country? Should our immigration policy be universal asylum for the world's poor? We do not have the resources for such a policy, and it is not in our interest.

Some may respond that Mexico's economic plight is the result of the North American Free Trade Agreement, making poverty in Mexico our responsibility. NAFTA hasn't been a boon for Mexico, but that doesn't mean that without it Mexico would be a prosperous nation. Let us not forget that illegal immigration was a problem in the U.S. before NAFTA was ratified. The reality is that decades of corruption and poor governance at every level of Mexican government has led to its current economic situation, not a regional trade bloc. Mexico's inability to govern itself isn't a good enough reason for us to take in Mexico's poor.

It has been suggested that the off-loading of Mexico's poor into the United States is actually to our economic benefit -- that illegal immigrants are "the backbone of our economy." As mentioned earlier, proponents of illegal immigration have taken the moral high ground by dressing this issue as one concerning human rights.

Let's look at their economic argument: Illegal immigrants get wages that no American is willing to work for, so everyone benefits, right? Here's the problem: Since they are illegal, they have no labor protections, and employers can pay them very low wages, often below the federal minimum wage.

Illegal immigrants have, therefore, become the backbone of the economy because we can easily exploit their labor. So although this was said to be a human rights issue, we're now letting in illegal immigrants in order to benefit from cheap, easily exploitable labor. Hardly social justice is it?

At rallies nationwide, there were numerous photographs of protestors holding both American and Mexican flags. Though this didn't appear to be as prominent at the Santa Clara rally, it's still an issue. The United States Oath of Naturalization requires that the new citizen "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate state or sovereignty, of whom or which [he/she has] heretofore been a subject or citizen."

If foreign nationals who illegally entered this country have the gall to demand amnesty ahead of every other person who has patiently waited through the admittedly slow naturalization process, they should make sure that the only flags at their rallies are American.

The Oath of Naturalization also requires that "I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic... that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law." How many illegal immigration proponents truly understand the implications of citizenship? Do they know what they're asking for? This oath must be taken seriously.

If amnesty proposals have no ground to stand on, what then are we to do?

First, the federal government should vigorously prosecute business managers who hire illegal immigrants. This causes the potential costs of hiring and exploiting illegal labor to far outweigh any potential benefits. The result? The job market for illegal labor will shrink drastically, eliminating the impetus for illegal immigration.

Secondly, the naturalization process should undergo significant reform. This will allow legal immigrants to get the citizenship they want and deserve. Such a system is just, fair and makes sense.

James Tait is a sophomore political science and classics double major.