Immigration

by Rain Trueax

 Sonoran Gopher Snake at our Tucson backyard pool. He/she might look scary, but they are very beneficial to the environment. You can tell a dangerous snake from this one by head shape. Rattlers have triangular heads. The rattles are less reliable as they can lose those various ways. It's nice when we can clearly define what is dangerous and what is beneficial.

Originally, I had not planned on starting with from where my thinking on immigration has come, but Diane asked that I do that. She and I come from different backgrounds but have been friends for over 50 years. In the early mornings, we used to meet for coffee, when we both lived in a Tucson apartment complex. Our husbands would leave for Graduate School, and she and I'd talk over different things that seemed important at the time. We often disagreed, but it didn't matter. We didn't get mad. She'd head off to paint and I'd write. It was a creative environment, one I have never actually duplicated.

Recently, she and I decided here to discuss some big topics that we know we don't see the same way. We are doing it to show people can disagree and remain friends. We can let it go when we can't convince someone else that we are right. One of the problems today is the bubbles in which so many live. They hear only one side and get to thinking everyone out of their bubble is bad. I've been unfriended for that very reason on Facebook. I've come to believe that in most bubbles, if I read them at all, it's smarter to not say what I think unless it's Amen. The bubble is their right. It's a shame though as hearing from other viewpoints can let us know the ones who think that way are not bad people for disagreeing.

As for my own background, I come from working people, mostly lower income but responsible folks. There wasn't an elite among us-- intellectually or economically. I have jokingly called myself a redneck because I understand those people and ranchers tend to work with the basics of life. My people valued education but didn't see someone with a fancy degree as necessarily any smarter than someone without a high school diploma. They were more knowledgeable, of course, at least about some things...

One of my main lessons from childhood is--actions have consequences. I grew up with a belief that idealism is fine, but it has to be tempered with reality. This was reinforced when my husband of 55 years and I bought a farm over 40 years ago. Farming teaches you even more strongly that idealism doesn't get the work done. It doesn't fix broken fences. There is a reality that those who work the land learn or they go back to the city. For farmers and ranchers, work is not a temporary vacation. It's a day by day reality. You do it or it does not get done. 

True, some farmers do pay those not legally here to do the work but not many cattle ranchers as it's dangerous work where you need to be skilled or it won't turn out well for you. That is also true of most forestry work; and in my part of Oregon, I see very few migrants in those jobs. The only big farmer nearby has brought up workers from Mexico but applied for them legally with blue cards. That lets the workers come and go.

Now, I do see a lot of those likely without documentation seasonally for Christmas tree harvesting. They aren't here later. Generally speaking, work for migrants has meant a need to move with the crops-- this is not new. It was big in the US during the Dust Bowl years in the '30s for families like Ranch Boss's father's. It is true today for those living in RVs, who go from job to job. Steady work isn't always available for some-- here illegally or otherwise.

My time in Arizona, where the border is today an issue, began in 1965 and has been off and on until it increased when we finally bought a second home in Tucson 20 years ago. Tucson is a place of many ethnicities, a city proud of its past with influences from the early Mexican settlers, the Native Americans, the Chinese, and yes, European settlers.

I've seen the difference illegal immigration has made to Southwestern places where I enjoy re-creating, mountain islands and valleys along the border. There was a time, when we could explore washes down there or out of Tucson with no concern for who we might meet. For those who don't know, the scary people are not generally speaking the migrants but those who bring them and drugs. I've personally seen what it has done to border towns like Nogales where the fences got more onerous and intimidating, where the ones I'd see hanging around looked more dangerous-- on both sides. Where rudeness to women got more out in the open by the comments made. That was not the Nogales of 1965.

One of my favorite areas to explore out of Tucson (Ironwood National Monument now) had a group of immigrants murdered as they waited for a ride-- murdered by a rival cartel. It's a place we no longer go without watching for what's coming. 

Same thing with nearer to the border. We go but with caution and yes, with a gun. On the ranches down there, I've read their stories, seen for myself the plastic garbage strewn (which when cows eat kills them), seen cut fences, to which I, of course, relate. I've read how tanks were left dry after migrants refilled their bottles and left the tap open. This whole thing of having people crossing land with no respect for it can't be understood unless someone understands and tends to the land. 

Despite understanding the side of those who have their land and want to protect it, I also sympathize with those here without papers, who work hard but find their lives on hold as they never really know if there will be a knock at the door. This is an intolerable problem and it's made worse that some profit from it-- on both sides of the partisan divide. 

Because of my nature, I read both sides, desperate stories like this one [Risks for the migrants] but I am a practical woman, made so by my life and belief in rules-- an archaic way to be in today's world apparently. I also believe that with a country 22,000,000,000 in debt, where we aren't going to see 0 interest in the future, what can we really afford? There is no sugar daddy out there to pay that all off. We have to live responsibly as individuals. Why is the government different.

So, here we go with what I have come to believe-- and yes, it involves a wall--

 Immigration -- legal or otherwise

To discuss this topic, i want to separate legal from illegal immigration. The US still allows over 1,000,000 people to become citizens every year. There are 37,000,000 naturalized citizens, legal immigrants in the US. They come from around the world but from what I could tell, the largest numbers are from Asia. I have read we assimilate (a word I like for when an immigrant comes here) more than any other nation. 

For those who think we are the harshest country, I read recently in the Guardian that in England if a landlord rents to someone without documents, they face [major penalties]. Can you imagine the uproar if that was suggested for the US?

As for how many are here illegally, the current administration wants that question on the next census as Democrats resist the idea. Why wouldn’t they want to know? At this point, the numbers are guesswork but maybe 12 to 22,000,000. In some states they get driver’s licenses. They can go to ERs for medical care. Despite denials, some get benefits like food stamps and even welfare, their children go to school and some probably vote, which may explain democrat reluctance to have a solid count. Given the ease of getting fake IDs, we really have no idea what's going on-- and some don't want to know.

Those coming across a porous border compete for jobs on the lower economic levels likely helping to keep wages down for others in that job market. They may influence lower hotel prices due to maid service. How many in favor of flows of illegals connect their cheaper veggies to workers working at low wages, often, because they can't complain to an authority, below even our minimum wages. How many, who object to a meaningful border, get their gardening done by a crew not here legally because it's cheaper than paying those who have documentation and can ask for more?

Going by their quotes, some of the candidates running for the Presidency advocate an open border. Others claim they want a border but no wall or fence.  The interesting thing with politicians is how seldom they say what they actually want. So Beto says he believes in borders but wants to tear down existing walls that help to maintain those borders. Hillary speaks more like a moderate but where does she really want to go?

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the Hemisphere,” she said in the May 2013 speech to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau.

Of the 19 people currently running for the Presidency, I don't think any are advocating changing the policy allowing people from non-contiguous countries to immediately apply for asylum upon touching American soil. This is where the emergency is-- because it takes a long time to go through the courts to assess genuine claims from just a desire to make more money. This is where another law, the Flores, means children can only be held in such institutions for a limited time. It has led to separations of families. The talk of children in cages though has been somewhat distorted with some from the Obama years and a few faked for sympathy.

What suggestion do Dems offer to this whole problem (which is simpler where it involves Mexico as those people can be sent right back)? For refugee claimers, it's-- build more dormitories and get more judges. That does not solve the problem of how many can the country take in? Are these people who can work here or those who will need more social services? From where do they come? 

Rudolfo Karisch, RGF Sector Chief, said his sector has apprehended people from 50 different countries, including China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt and Romania. “People are traveling across hemispheres to attempt to illegally enter the U.S., using the same pathways as the Central Americans,” he said.

"What we need is comprehensive immigration reform,” Bernie Sanders said. "If you open the borders, my God, there's a lot of poverty in this world, and you're going to have people from all over the world. And I don't think that's something that we can do at this point. Can't do it.”

Idealism vs. practicality.

People who express what my friend Diane said about open borders generally speaking are idealists. They are also not working or living in neighborhoods most impacted by unbounded immigration from poverty stricken countries. Just look at Africa alone for the problems there often with corrupt governments that have robbed from their own people. How many impoverished people would love to get here for our social programs? What does that do to those already on them?

For how corruption has impacted a lot of this, one only has to look at Maduro and earlier Chavez in Venezuela, which despite its oil riches, is today a broken country propped up by Russia and China to get the oil and a foothold in the Americas. 

Democrats, eager for a victory in 2020, where they take back control of the Senate, keep the House and have a president in power, are saying there is no crisis. Why would they admit that? It doesn't profit them.

With unlimited immigration from around the world, what is the breaking point?  The youngest ones running for President on the Dem side don’t seem to think there is one as they want the richer to pay more or cut the military in a time where both Russia and China are making aggressive moves around the world (if you didn't know that, do some research). I wonder sometimes whether those who advocate open immigration, with no controls, think much about who it impacts the most.

From Andrew Sullivan's column in New York Magazine:  “The issue will be dominant again — because of a huge wave of migrants, many of them rural Guatemalans, who are overwhelming the border, trying to enter the U.S. at a current pace of 100,000 a month. Their ability to claim asylum under current law permits them to show up at the border, get admitted and processed by the Border Patrol, and then released into the interior, to reside here until a court date, which could come up years later. The backlog in the underfunded immigration courts is vast, with more than a million still in line for a hearing. Many of the migrants won’t show up for the court date; those who do can still resist deportation indefinitely.

“What this means is that the U.S. now has an effectively open border with Mexico, and, according to the American Bar Association, the immigration system is “irredeemably dysfunctional and on the brink of collapse.” Repeating the Democratic mantra that there is no border crisis will not work for much longer. This year will see more undocumented immigrants than in any year under Obama. And the high rate of success among those trying to enter to the country now encourages more migrants to make the journey, especially given the forces of disorder and climate change that are forcing people to flee. The lesson from Europe in 2015 is that a migrant surge fuels itself, as word gets back home. We could, in other words, be in the mother of all immigration scares as the first primaries take place. We could have a million more migrants to grapple with.”

So, the left offers no solutions for what we do for the poor and homeless in our country. They don't consider basic housing for so many coming here, a fair number not even speaking Spanish let alone English. They don't really think about the price these wantabe immigrants pay as they come to a land where they are told a good life awaits them. No, it's all about-- the poor need to be taken care of... except, by whom? Some Dem leaders want to guarantee everyone a job-- apparently paid for by government (you do know who that is). Skills? How can that matter? They want health care for everyone. They want college tuition for everyone. When it comes to discussions on how to do that, how to pay for that, you are a racist to ask the question. 

I do respect Bernie Sanders for at least listing the increased taxes he'd be wanting for half the cost of his program of Medicare for all. I think his desire for that program at least explains why he doesn't favor unlimited entries. Can you imagine how that influx would impact your own access to medical care. You can see how it already does in countries that have it.

Dems ignore that they can't control their own cities, the ones they run, with now pooping on the streets apparently okay (forgetting about the plagues of human history). Dems ignore a lot, which is why I am now an unaffiliated voter. 

Reality is we cannot take in all the poor of the world. We cannot demand  countries, like Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, do more to fix their own problems. When it has been threatened to take the aid we send them, it's supposed to be cruel except who got that aid? If it was the poor, why are they coming here? If the aid was fixing water systems down there or creating jobs, doing more about gangs down there, we'd still have some coming but not in these big caravans.

Some time back, on a blog, I wrote about my own ideas of what we do about immigration. In short it's--

1. Fix the border so nobody comes across without permission. That means walls some places and good surveillance others.  There are places where there is more traffic, especially cities, do what can be done with good barriers.

2. As part of fixing the border, we end the law that lets those from non-contiguous countries apply for asylum once they step on American soil. What that means is anybody in the world other than Mexico or Canada. That's insane IMHO. Along with that, find a way to end the 1997 [Flores Settlement Agreement], which is why children get separated from parents waiting for an asylum hearing.

3. We make it possible with increased staff for those who want to apply for legitimate asylum and refugee status to do so in their own countries, then if they qualify, we fly or bus them to America (cutting the coyotes out of millions-- not to mention their ability to abuse and rape the ones they are paid to bring up). 

4. With strict penalties, we enforce eVerify in the work place. We make it so that even those who came here with Visas cannot work once they overstay them. 

5. Once the border is closed to all but legal traffic, I favor a path to citizenship for those already here, young or old, if they've been good citizens. I want them then to go through the same process legal immigrants go, as we try to assimilate them into this country, not to take away their own cultures but to teach them what this one has been about-- warts and all. That cannot happen without stopping the border. Reagan tried it the other way in '84 and it got us to where we are. As Bernie Sanders said, it would destroy our country to let in all who want to come if we offer so much once they get here.

Nobody really benefits from a hidden population. For those who fear their construction, maid services, food, etc. will cost more if we have a totally legal working force (who are able to complain when abused, able to ask for better wages), they are paying more than they think for those veggies. They just don't see the true cost. 

Despite what some want to say, we are facing a humanitarian and legal emergency, and it's due to both parties benefiting from it with no concern for the immigrants or the economic lower classes already here (most don't even know that world). I only wish I could hear that from more Dems running for office, who will care more about people than winning, who have ideas that might solve the problem, not just spout rhetoric, and don't want to tear down existing walls to pander to the idealists. I am not even sure those who say it believe it. They just know it plays to those who don't count costs  (often to someone other than themselves) in their idealism.