The question of immigration remains
The values battle continues
David Moll v Paul Jones
Issue date: 3/10/05 Section: Op/Ed
By David Moll
There has been a long-running dichotomy in California whenever the topic of illegal immigration comes up. On one hand, there are a number of service industries that rely upon immigrant labor and would cease to function if that labor pool were to dry up. On the other hand, the amount the state still provides for education and health care to undocumented immigrants, is becoming a sizeable drain on California's economy.
On numerous occasions, there has been talk of issuing licenses, guest worker visas or other forms of State-sanctioned identification, all paid for by legal, tax-paying citizens.
To be blunt, all of these demi-capitulations are an insult to law- abiding citizens. In recent years, voters have grown increasingly opposed to any program that offers any service for anyone who comes to this country illegally. Witness the passage of Proposition 187, which sought to end all aid to illegal immigrants. The proposition passed by a very wide margin and serves as a clear insight into public opinion. Much to the chagrin of California voters, the passage of 187 had ostensibly no effect on the services provided, nor their fiscal impact on the state budget. State agencies essentially ignored the law, claiming that higher federal statutes took precedence.
Aside from this division between public opinion and policy, the crux of my objection lies in abiding by the law. To wit, the principle of extending amnesty to law-breakers is repugnant. Before funding programs that reward law-breakers, the enforcement of rigid immigration policy is paramount. U.S. Border Patrol needs the authority and manpower to arrest and deport those who do not use the proper channels for immigration, who are found in the country without documentation.
Now before you I'm accused of xenophobia, isolationism or worse, I wholeheartedly support programs that help out citizens who've fallen on hard times. The key distinction is that programs provided to legal citizens are based on the assumption that those who receive aid will be able to give back "to the system" in tax dollars at a later point in time. But when aid programs start spending money on those who won't be contributing in tax revenue and often take money out the U.S. economy altogether, the system falls apart. The debt incurred by these programs continues to rise, increasing the strain on legal, tax-paing citizens.
There has been a long-running dichotomy in California whenever the topic of illegal immigration comes up. On one hand, there are a number of service industries that rely upon immigrant labor and would cease to function if that labor pool were to dry up. On the other hand, the amount the state still provides for education and health care to undocumented immigrants, is becoming a sizeable drain on California's economy.
On numerous occasions, there has been talk of issuing licenses, guest worker visas or other forms of State-sanctioned identification, all paid for by legal, tax-paying citizens.
To be blunt, all of these demi-capitulations are an insult to law- abiding citizens. In recent years, voters have grown increasingly opposed to any program that offers any service for anyone who comes to this country illegally. Witness the passage of Proposition 187, which sought to end all aid to illegal immigrants. The proposition passed by a very wide margin and serves as a clear insight into public opinion. Much to the chagrin of California voters, the passage of 187 had ostensibly no effect on the services provided, nor their fiscal impact on the state budget. State agencies essentially ignored the law, claiming that higher federal statutes took precedence.
Aside from this division between public opinion and policy, the crux of my objection lies in abiding by the law. To wit, the principle of extending amnesty to law-breakers is repugnant. Before funding programs that reward law-breakers, the enforcement of rigid immigration policy is paramount. U.S. Border Patrol needs the authority and manpower to arrest and deport those who do not use the proper channels for immigration, who are found in the country without documentation.
Now before you I'm accused of xenophobia, isolationism or worse, I wholeheartedly support programs that help out citizens who've fallen on hard times. The key distinction is that programs provided to legal citizens are based on the assumption that those who receive aid will be able to give back "to the system" in tax dollars at a later point in time. But when aid programs start spending money on those who won't be contributing in tax revenue and often take money out the U.S. economy altogether, the system falls apart. The debt incurred by these programs continues to rise, increasing the strain on legal, tax-paing citizens.