Changing the way we think about illegal immigration

By Roey Rahmil

Our discourse about immigration is predicated on a mistake.

Participants in the discussion often seem to assume that undocumented immigrants wield some kind of significant power over the rest of the population, that they can cause some kind of significant harm and owe restitution for their wrongdoing.

I think this premise is flawed.

Undocumented immigrants constitute a group that is trapped in low-wage jobs, lives in constant fear of deportation, and for the most part, seeks only to survive. Though some allege that all immigrants have committed serious crimes and in aggregate threaten this country, the facts do not attest to this. I would even go so far as to say the opposite is true: Undocumented immigrants are more in a position to be harmed than is the country at large.

If that is the case, then the situation ought to be reversed. We ought to focus on what we can do for undocumented immigrants, not what they might be doing to us.

First, let me lay out how I think the debate currently functions. Commentators and advocates focus on the wrongs undocumented immigrants have committed and what they should be required to do to compensate for them. Some argue that undocumented immigrants have committed an act of fundamental disrespect for U.S. law. Others take a more pragmatic tactic, maintaining that illegal immigration threatens the nation's economy and poses a danger to U.S. culture.

These concerns are overstated at best. While undocumented immigrants have by definition violated U.S. law, it's important to keep their violations in perspective: There were no victims, and there was no violence; their acts posed no risk to anyone other than themselves (and in many cases were not even felonies). And while some undocumented immigrants commit serious crimes, so do natural-born citizens. Moreover, evidence indicates that immigration is at worst a wash economically, and at best provides fiscal benefits to the U.S. economy.

And while the cultural debate deserves more discussion than this column can accommodate, history shows that immigrant groups have integrated smoothly -- albeit sometimes slowly -- into American society at large.

Yet the discussion tends to focus on how we should either punish undocumented immigrants' past crimes or address whatever threat they currently pose.

But if our system of justice focuses on imposing negative consequences for bad acts, it seems only fair that the system should also reward good acts. So as long as we're focusing on what undocumented immigrants are doing here, let's look at reality. It's overwhelmingly positive.

Most immigrants are simply working, doing needed jobs that barely sustain themselves and their families. And many immigrants are struggling every day to overcome hardships that most of us escaped merely by pure accident of birth.

Keeping with this theme of a just reward, how can the federal government thank undocumented immigrants who have made lives for themselves in the United States through years of hard work?

I think earned citizenship (or some kind of legal status) is the most fitting remedy. It removes the constant threat of deportation and provides an incentive for undocumented immigrants to work steadily, stay away from crime and integrate into the community. It is not, as some reactionaries put it, "amnesty." Rather, it is a recognition of a life lived well.

But on a larger scale, it's not just the federal government that can be doing things for, not to, undocumented immigrants. If you think it's absolutely repugnant that some Santa Clara graduates have to live in fear; if you think that undocumented immigrants are human beings just like anyone else; if you think that this school is doing the right thing by helping those immigrants in need, then you can help reorient the debate to address real issues. Don't get distracted by fake, contrived arguments. Focus on what counts: what we can do for others.

Roey Rahmil is a senior political science and philosophy double major.