Undocumented College Students and the American Dream

A few days ago, this article appeared in the New York Times. Rigoberto Padilla, a Chicago area college student and undocumented immigrant, generated publicity after being arrested for DUI and driving without a license–a charge that led to an deportation order. He came to the United States as a 6-year-old. It’s not a unique case: a few years ago, a classmate passed around a petition in my Spanish class to prevent deportation for an undocumented college student, arrested at the bus station when he couldn’t prove his citizenship.

Many people, even those who favor strict immigration policies, find these deportation orders senseless. The kids didn’t choose to come to the United States without papers–their parents did. They were raised in U.S. culture and speak English with an American accent. Deportation seems illogical, even cruel. According to the article, “Roy Beck, the executive director of NumbersUSA, a group that has staunchly opposed a legal path for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, said in an interview that he could support legal status for some young immigrant students.”

I think this tells us a lot about how we define “being American,” and also about how undocumented/illegal migration is philosophically ambiguous. “If you spend your formative years in the United States, you have a right to stay” seems to be the premise that makes us balk at deporting these students. “If you’re a child, it’s not your fault to have migrated illegally” is the other assumption.

But are we ready to place blame on those who chose to immigrate without papers? Indeed, crossing the border without papers is breaking a law. But most illegal activities correspond with some ethical wrongdoing. People who murder or steal are condemned not so much for doing something illegal, as for doing something that we consider morally wrong. The laws are in place to enforce that ethical belief. For many of us, crossing the border just doesn’t evoke the same moral reprehension.

Undocumented college students are, in a way, the success stories of undocumented immigration: they made it past obstacles of poverty, language difference, legal status, etc. into the respectability of higher education. With their degrees, we imagine them becoming professionals, fluent in both their native and adopted cultural norms. It’s easy to sympathize with them because they fit so neatly into the grand narrative of the American Dream: economic ascent as validation of national belonging. “Making it” makes you American.

But for the undocumented students who didn’t make it through high school, or crossed the border as preteens to start work, who didn’t learn English, or who decided to come here as adults–the American Dream isn’t so neatly reaffirmed. For those who don’t thrive in the ways that mainstream America values–assimilating and advancing–no crowd rallies to stop deportations.  Are they criminals, or are they simply doing their jobs? Do we deport them because they call into question the legitimacy of our beloved American Dream?

I strongly support the right of these undocumented students to seek an education. I only hope that we are not constructing a tiny elite of “good illegal immigrants” only to dismiss, denigrate and deport those who do not fit our ideals of a “true” American.

And now some thoughts on immigration from…the Ayn Rand Institute?

Well, I don’t know too much about Ayn Rand. I’ve never read her books, and I am not sure that I want to. She sounds like an intriguing person, but from what I’ve read about her, I would expect the views coming from her Institute to be ones I wouldn’t agree with (their goals being “to promote the principles of reason, rational self-interest, individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism”). But I found my way to a video of the President of the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, offering his views on immigration. (Video 1 and Video 2).

Arguing that the government’s role should be limited to protecting citizens from bodily harm, Brook advocates an open-border policy that allows anyone to enter legally except “terrorists,” “criminals” and “people with infectious diseases.” He reasons that Americans’ hiring decisions should not be regulated, and the government is not responsible for creating or protecting jobs. By opening border crossings broadly, only those who fall into the categories of terrorists, criminals, and people with infectious diseases, would attempt to cross illegally. This smaller group could be more easily kept out (Brook suggests shooting at them), thus maintaining national security. He adds that migrants with high levels of education could more easily enter the United States, a boon to U.S. industry. Brook also says:

I believe that people who are today struggling and fighting to go to the United States are acting heroically. My standard of heroism is a person trying to make the best life they can for themselves. And a pregnant woman in Mexico who wants a better life for her child, and therefore is willing to struggle and do what it takes today to cross the border illegally into the United States, is heroically trying to make her life and her child’s life better by coming to America. I don’t think that should be condemned. I think, indeed, that should be praised. She’s a hero…by coming to the best country on Earth to make the best life that you can in the world today.

I agree that legal immigration should be more inclusive. But I don’t agree with Brook’s argument, nor his specifications on how to prevent illegal immigration.

First, this speech sugarcoats–or actually, completely omits–the reality of what it means to be a migrant from a poor country in the United States. Under his plan, though migrants would have legal status, the same stance that gives Americans that right to hire whoever they want would also allow U.S. employers to pay their workers whatever they want, or treat them however they want. Undocumented workers labor without the benefit of protection from the government–the minimum wage does not apply, nor do fair labor practices. Employers can insist on twelve hour days, seven days a week. With a hands-off government, even legal migrants would have no leverage to demand reasonable work conditions.

Second, I find Brook’s solution to discriminate between safe and unsafe migrants at best facile. How would migrants prove their lack of a criminal background? I’d imagine it would have to be some government document–another opportunity for a barrier-building bureaucracy. I’m not very impressed with U.S. officials’ ability to identify terrorists thus far, and it would certainly be very difficult to develop a mechanism to identify people as non-terrorists on a broad scale. And “infectious diseases”? Does he mean people with a cold?  I could see this very easily be used as grounds to discriminate against HIV-positive individuals. That Brook could comment offhand that these people should be shot on sight–well, that plain disturbs me. He explains that these groups are not permitted entry for the danger they represent to American citizens. Yet in “weeding out” the undesired migrants, he proposes an impractical system easily manipulated to discriminate and exclude.

Despite these critiques, what Brook promotes something that is, in many ways, pretty close to what I believe in: straightforward and inclusive legal immigration. So why would I feel uncomfortable calling him an ally? I think the answer lies in the paragraph I quoted above. Ultimately, in this schema of “individual rights,” some individuals are more worthy than others. Brook justifies allowing migration by saying that it benefits American citizens: it’s good for the economy, improves national security, gives us freedom to hire whoever we want. The benefits of migration to the migrant are not relevant or convincing to his audience, who believe passionately in the pursuit of their own self-interest.

The potentially redeeming image of the pregnant Mexican woman is not an affirmation of the dignity of trying to provide for a family. Instead, it ennobles the migrant for aspiring to the superior reality that is the United States. He lauds the woman for realizing the merit of “the best country on Earth” and leaving behind the lesser land she came from. She is affirming the righteousness of Americans’ individual rights by seeking Americanness herself. The possibility that she imagines a good life for her child in Mexico–made secure by wages she earned in the United States–is not discussed, for it would confound Brook’s nationalist underpinnings.

And for this Mexican migrant, when individual rights come into conflict, hers will lose out. The American employer who underpays and overworks her is only exercising his individual rights, after all. And if she doesn’t stand for it, of course the employer has the right to hire someone who will. Because the employer has more power to start with, the employer’s individual rights always will have more clout.

What I do know about Ayn Rand is that her fervent belief in capitalism had much to do with early, unhappy years in the Soviet Union that turned her forever against Communism or anything that looked remotely like it. Ayn Rand was an immigrant of the “melting pot” type: she assimilated to the language, changed her name, economic system, and cultural traits of “mainstream” white Americans. Because in her worldview the pursuit of personal wealth is the noblest human activity, economically-motivated migration is ideologically impossible to oppose. But the logic of capitalism, for all the rags-to-riches stories it makes possible, is heartless. Though hard work can lead to wealth, billions of humans work very hard and earn very little. Capitalism isn’t the least bit fair. By refusing to acknowledge the injustice of an individual rights/capitalist system–however “well” it may work compared to other economic models–the Ayn Rand philosophy must also discriminate to make itself valid.

In the name of “Reason,” Brook invokes an open immigration policy not out of compassion for migrants, but as a confirmation of the goodness that is American capitalism. It is self-serving, which is just fine by Ayn Rand, who hopes that everyone will act selfishly. But without a level playing field, the idea of  “individual rights” condones and exacerbates gross injustice. Heroism is acting bravely on behalf of others, and not even Brook can deny this totally. After all, it is the unborn child in his heroine’s womb that makes her border crossing truly admirable–she acts not only for herself, but also, or mostly, for her baby’s sake.

I am very curious to read your reactions to this–criticism encouraged!

How do we feel about immigration?

In the spring of 2007, just days after I went to Mexico for the first time, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, entered homes and detained 29 people in New Haven, Connecticut who did not have legal immigrant status. This caused a great deal of controversy, and recently, a group of students at the Yale Law School took the case of several of the detainees to sue ICE for the raids. If you want to read the whole story, click here.

I was actually more interested in the reader comments that followed the article, though. Any internet news fiend knows that, much like alcohol, the ability to comment anonymously lowers a person’s inhibitions. The comment section of an article covering any contentious issue is bound to become a forum for vitriol, absolutism, and name-calling among strangers–even if these disagreeing parties might never raise their voices to one another in a real-life conversation.

But when it comes to immigration, I am astounded by the hatred that Americans feel toward those who crossed borders without papers. The article about the ICE raids had a few meek statements of approval for the case. Far more prominent and prevalent were those categorically opposed to the immigrants’ case. Commenters offered the following remarks:

“Follow our laws, come here LEGALLY, and you have nothing to worry about. Go ICE!!!”

“The illegals should have NO rights since they are not citizens and should not even be in this country, let alone be able to file a lawsuit against the government.”

“Americans OVERWHELMINGLY DO NOT WANT ILLEGALS IN OUR COUNTRY.”

“these worthless criminal parasites need to be arrested again, jailed, fined, treated roughly and then deported in the back of a van stuffed with the rest of these thieving parasites”

“Our Government, past & present, Republican & Democrat, have allowed the invasion of 20 to 30 million criminals and uneducated peons which is the largest invasion of any Nation, at any time, by any means & in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution.”

How did you feel when you read these comments? I found myself wondering whether these people would say these things out loud. But I don’t know if it matters. If people think this way, it will guide their actions, their votes, and the messages they teach their children.

You may have noticed that in my blog, I call migrants who enter the United States without proper papers “undocumented.” Though this is gaining currency, most people use the term “illegal immigrants,” or as these commenters have shorthanded, simply “illegals.” There is a political distinction between the two terms. The concept of “illegal immigration” describes the process of entering a country outside of the legal path to do so: fine, that’s pretty accurate. But the idea that a PERSON can be illegal is what influences me, and others, to react strongly against the term. Committing an illegal act does not make you an illegal person. We do not call tax evaders, rapists, or murderers “illegal citizens.” I realize that insisting on another term might seem terribly “politically correct,” but the way we use words very much shapes the way we see the world. That’s why terms that were once standard are considered to be racial slurs inappropriate for use.

The commenters quoted above see undocumented immigrants as illegal human beings. This justifies the choice to call them “parasites” and to insist that they have no rights. If we replaced the word “illegal” with the name of a racial or religious group, these comments would be quickly and publicly condemned. “Illegal” is a code word to make racism seem like patriotism or respect for the law.

A few years ago, I heard a speech by a prominent Mexican academic on the topic of immigration. He said, “the problem with the liberal position on immigration is that they don’t have one. Conservatives know that they do not want immigrants in the United States, period. They see it as an issue of protecting American rights, jobs, and national security. But liberals don’t know what they want. They don’t necessarily want millions of undocumented immigrants to enter the country, either.” I’d add that it’s hard to support immigrants’ rights without risking accusations of anti-Americanism.

So therein lies the problem. If we reject the option of treating undocumented immigrants like criminals, what do we propose as an alternative? I think the fundamental premise of defending the rights of immigrants, regardless of how they entered the United States, is one of human rights. Whether a person is born in the United States or not, he or she has the right to work for a living wage and experience the basic freedoms of citizenship. If the Mexican economy is ill-equipped to provide all of its citizens with this living wage, does that mean that the United States must pick up the slack? I think many people would say, “that’s not our job. Let’s take care of our citizens first.” But what if research showed that the unequal economic relationship between the United States and Mexico was causing this lack of jobs for Mexicans in Mexico? Would we accept the responsibility then?  And if we are opposed to contributing to the human rights of citizens of other nations, then what are we doing in the Middle East? Why would we spend billions on “promoting democracy” in Iraq or Afghanistan, but prove completely unwilling to provide basic social services to Mexican citizens living and working within our borders?

Personally, I am glad that the Yale Law students took the case of the detained migrants. I don’t think it will make much difference in the end. I don’t think illegal immigration is a good thing, and I don’t think people should break laws. I would never encourage someone to cross the border without papers, if primarily out of concern for migrants’ personal safety. But I also don’t think that raiding the homes of working families is a good use of federal resources. I do not think immigration issues will be solved by deporting or building walls. Do I have a solution ready to go? I don’t.

But if my experiences have taught me anything, it’s that the injunction to “just come the States legally” is not as simple as it sounds. In fact, for all but the most educated and wealthy Mexicans, it’s next to impossible. If we don’t like illegal immigration, we need to make legal immigration a more user-friendly, egalitarian, inclusive process. If we don’t want millions of immigrants period, legal or not, then we need to look for ways to create jobs in Mexico so that those who migrate for work will not need to leave their families and homelands to earn a provider’s wage. Furthermore, making legal immigration viable allows for much more regulation, regulation that can help distinguish between narcotraffickers and ordinary people just looking for work.

I was thinking about the Minutemen, citizen vigilantes who patrol the U.S.-Mexico border hoping to scare off potential migrants. I wonder if they might come closer to achieving their goals if they invested in providing microcredit loans to rural Mexican families instead of buying rifles and spending days in the desert. After all, migrants do not come to the U.S. for kicks, and it’s hardly a happy experience working below minimum wage in an unfamiliar land. It’s not hard to imagine that those who had other options–like a viable small business–might never make the journey. A Minuteman “defending” the border says he wants to protect his family and his country. Wouldn’t it be more productive to achieve that goal while giving Mexican mothers and fathers the chance to do the same? Maybe it will take a long time to make Mexico a place where all families can meet their needs and achieve their goals. In the meantime, I think it’s only humanitarian to demand compassion, rights, and legal channels for immigration for any brave soul hoping to enter the United States looking to work.