My ancestors might have been illegal immigrants. I have no reason to suspect that they were, nor any reason to believe that everything was on the up and up. We are not a family of scrapbooking types, so if there ever were immigration papers, they would have been lost, destroyed, or stuffed in an unmarked box in the dank corner of someone’s basement long ago. What I do know is that there have never been any claims of American Indian heritage in my family, so basically, we are guilty of being part of the problem. We come from Russia, Germany, Poland (when it was part of Russia), Ireland, Canada, and France. Maybe elsewhere. My Russian family had our name changed by dolts who could not pronounce or spell anything other than strictly Anglo words. The result: a Russian last name that was –almost ironically–converted to one that looks Hispanic and is often pronounced as such. That part of the family came through legal means, I suppose, in the late 19th century. As for the rest of my family, who knows? It’s plausible that the French-Canadian ones crossed over to Vermont through the woods at night. Others ended up in the state after being routed through Indiana and Wisconsin. At any rate, we have not been here for terribly long.
I was born in the U.S., as were my parents. I can’t vouch for my father’s parents. How far back must one prove legal entrance before the current surge of nativists are content with offering us non-Mayflower arrivals “services” or “privileges?” Because I am white and speak without an accent (beyond the occasional regional inflection) I have not once been questioned by anyone in government or law enforcement about my immigration status or right to be here. It’s assumed that I belong. When I have called the police in past years to report various crimes (drug-related activity, fights/altercations), I was never asked to prove my identity. There was not even a check of my driver’s license.
I can not get away from the irony that exists in the immigration “debate.” For starters, many opponents of sharing the land claim religiosity of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, yet have no attention span about the tenets of their religions. Like many other parts of American life, they have gone the route of picking and choosing what seems most convenient in their religion/laws to suit their personal prejudices. In the Ten Commandments, we are directed not to steal, murder, or cheat. Elsewhere in the Bible, we are urged to love our neighbors, our brothers. Although not an expert, I’ve read the Bible a few times independently, and don’t recall ever seeing a suggestion that God urged people to take up arms, sit by borders, and pick off fellow humans as they attempted to cross without filing paperwork.
As for picking and choosing, some nativists like to talk about how their ancestors did everything by the book, and so they are rightfully here and now entitled to prohibit others from coming. The Edge of the American West addresses this in Eric’s article, “Inventing Illegal Immigration.” Likewise, an overview of immigration history on the Ellis Island website shows that immigration laws and restrictions have been in flux, and at times, there were no laws regarding this issue. A comment (by Witt) on the Edge of the American West post reads:
Your post title reminds me that one of the great challenges in discussing immigration with the general public is that it usually starts from the presumption that “My grandparents followed the rules,” with little or no comprehension of the fact that for long periods in American history there were no rules.
The raging anti-immigration sentiment since 9/11/01 is nothing more than a rehashed version of what has emerged throughout history; previously it was anti-Irish, anti-Polish, and anti-Asian, rather than being hostile toward those from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, as is the current trend.
Right now, this ugly, selfish attitude is showing itself locally. A city ordinance was proposed that would free up resources by banning inquiries into residents’ immigration status. There is a totally unscientific poll to accompany to Hartford Courant article. I say it’s unscientific because I was able to vote more than once in it. In other words, just throw that poll out the window. (Note to HC: whoever is doing your hyperlinks is screwing up. The Parkville link sends the reader first to information on Baltimore, Maryland and to random stories, and not to the raids that happened in the Parkville section of Hartford. Get on it!) As this ordinance has been introduced, it has gained the ire of pundits who lack any cred, as well as that of Connecticut residents who are buying the line about immigrants causing all of society’s ills. The current scapegoating of immigrants for America’s drug problem is reminiscent of how the Irish were depicted as lazy drunks. It takes very little knowledge of history to see these parallels.
Earlier this week, there was a strong showing of support for the proposed ordinance in Hartford. That so many people have gotten behind this seems to be drowned out by obnoxious pundits and those who, like one author of a letter to the editor, rely on faulty logic:
It’s not bad enough that Harford [sic] is short on police and social services and faces overcrowded emergency rooms and schools. Councilman Luis Cotto wants to sidestep the law by not checking for illegal immigrants, granting them free entrance to our city with social services.
Who wouldn’t want to flock here? The message: If you are here illegally, you will be rewarded.
Why stop there? I want the law amended on traffic violations. If I have outstanding violations, I should not be arrested because if I am, I will not report serious crimes that I witness. Oh, yes, I also want social services. Then, even if I am not who I say I am, I will diligently report all crimes.
The reason why the illegal immigrant from Peru called 911 and reported a crime was because his friend was shot down. That was honorable. But otherwise, he probably woundn’t have for fear of being caught.
The city of Hartford and law enforcement are being led around with a ring through their noses. When we start limiting existing laws to protect and single out special illegal interests, we are on the downward slope. Does Hartford really want to set this example and have it explode into other areas? If so, all legal citizens should refuse to cooperate unless they get a reward.
The slippery slope argument is nothing more than a little shock and awe to go with our breakfast cereal, yet many buy into this concept that if one measure is taken, then the most extreme measures will follow. It’s the same “logic” used when people claim that same-sex marriage will lead to men marrying sheep. It’s the same logic that was used to justify American military involvement in Vietnam (i.e. If x country goes communist, then y country will go communist, all of Asia will be communist, and then the world. There goes the neighborhood!). What this author and many others seem to not understand is that existing laws can be wrong. What works about this country is that there is the flexibility to amend laws. If something is broken, why let it remain broken? When the law-making part of society conceded (after years of protest, struggle, etc., but that should go without saying) that slavery was wrong, the laws changed. When the law-making part recognized that women might have brains, not just wombs, the laws changed to permit voting, ability to own property, etc. Without the ability to change bad laws, we are asking to remain locked in the past, which does not serve anyone except for those comfortably in places of power.
But if we are going to compare an undocumented immigrant with a driver who has a history of traffic violations, then let’s do that. When a person moves from one space into another space without proper paperwork, he is at most, endangering himself. A vigilante on a head trip might shoot off rounds trying to fulfill a fantasy of being a rough, cowboy American hero. Someone who has violations for speeding and reckless driving, on the other hand, has taken a few tons of plastic, metal, and fuel, and without respect for others on the road (or sidewalk, or in some cases, in houses), barreled along, putting others at risk of injury and death. In 2006, there were in the range of 38,588 – 43,300 fatalities related to motor vehicle crashes. I could be selfish, but the reckless, intoxicated, tired, and just plain bad drivers are what I would perceive as a daily threat–not the immigrants who are here to work long, undesirable shifts so that their children can live more comfortable lives.
[Note: I have done extensive academic research and writing on the American Dream myth as it pertains to the immigrant experience, particularly that of the Irish immigrant during the 19th century]