The other side of the ferry token…
In a recent commentary, Phil Loring expressed some awkwardness regarding a perceived contradiction between a movement to save Ellis Island and the grass roots furor overillegal immigration which probably had a share in defeating Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Dream Act, and New York state’s Driver’s License initiative. There is an important distinction, however, which has been overlooked in his commentary. Whatever your feelings towards Ellis Island, it was a processing center for immigrants. By definition, those immigrants admitted through the Island station were legal. There is no connection between those immigrants and measures in Texas and Florida that are designed to prevent illegal immigration.
Movements to stop the illegal entry of individuals into the Unites States has apparently had no impact, as Loring’s commentary seems to suggest, on the overall welcoming of foreign-born individuals into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security’s Yearbook of Immigration statistics makes it clear that 2006 was a low year for both new refugees and now asylees in the US. This is part of a decreasing trend which seems to have begun with the Iraq invasion in 2003 and the assumption by the United States of a war-time posture.
On the other hand, the number of naturalizations in the US is on the rise, recovering from a low point in the early 2000’s, which itself represented more naturalizations than any year prior to the mid-1980’s. Clearly, despite a reduction in accepting new individuals from precarious and conflict-stricken areas, the United States continues to welcome new citizens from the around the world. The soup is apparently still on, and the opportunity still available to those who enter the country legally.
Why then are there the border controls Loring mentioned? And why the opposition to undocumented immigration? Some, including Vicente Fox himself, have suggested that racism against Mexicans is the root of the problem. This seems like a hard case to make when 12% of all new naturalizations were of former Mexican citizens. This is highest figure of any one country, and nearly double the next highest figure.
Perhaps, instead, it is simply the fact that illegal immigrants are here illegally. The United States a very law-conscious society which often chafes at rule-breakers, simply because they are rule-breakers. More than that, however, there are clear security problems with having a porous border, not to mention the strain on infrastructure which is not necessarily balanced by the input of these individuals.
Finally, it is important to recognize that this is not an attitude unique to the United States. In 2006, the Canadian government began a major effort to deport its illegal immigrants. In 2002 and again in 2004, Italy implemented increasingly strict measures to imprison and rapidly deport illegal immigrants. During 2005 through 2006, France worked out a new policy which granted amnesty to a small group of its illegal immigrant
population, but then called for the immediate deportation of all others. Countries like Japan, Singapore, and Australia are infamous for their restrictive immigration policies and harsh penalties for those who violate the policies.
Have there been changes in immigration into the United States? Certainly. Is the situation now perfect, or was it during the time of Ellis Island? Certainly not. But do current attitudes toward illegal immigrants characterize a depraved United States, fat on its own glory, turning a back on the ideals it claims for its past? In no way.
