In 1994 I was a freshman in high screwal. I was also a virgin member of the debate team with a particularly weighty topic to digest: immigration. The country was being besieged by illegal immigrants and it was in the hands of we brave high school debaters to determine the proper method of addressing the egregious problem. I took the task seriously.
Though it was controversial, I soon settled on a course of action that I was resolute on-- if not entirely willing to advocate. The only way forward, I was sure, was to issue black-and-white orders to the border patrol: shoot on sight! Any miscreant, money grubbing, welfare sucking, law-breaking, Mexican scum who thought he could slither into the U.S. of A. had better take notice: there is a new sheriff in town, and he isn't taking any prisoners!
That was, it seems, a lifetime ago, and indeed, my opinion of today bears little resemblance to my opinion of then. I have written a nice polemic statement on immigration on my website, but I felt compelled to comment here, given the timely nature of the debate in Congress. I can't think of something less American than resisting immigration. No one can intelligently maintain that immigration has been bad for America. I can't imagine anything less capitalist than restricting the free exchange of labor. I can't imagine anything less compassionate than turning back desperate father's trying to feed their children. In short, I think it is appalling to take the callous position of so many in the anti-immigrant community.
Anyone who risks his or her life to come here and work for menial wages is welcome in my book. If our law doesn't reflect that, it is OUR failing, not theirs. I don't pretend to have read the current legislation being considered. I almost certain my view would be more lenient than the compromise legislation.
What I must plead is for thinking, well-meaning people to consider that this country has enemies and that this country has dead-weight and that this country has social problems, but that none of these are due to immigration--illegal or otherwise. Our strength depends on the renewal of those who seek a better life. Our future will be built on their dreams. Let's all take a deep breath and think where our energy should be devoted. I say bienvenido.
1 comment:
Lady Liberty Not a Welcome Mat
By Brenda Walker
Published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on July 4, 2003
Great icons may suffer great misunderstandings in which erroneous mythology grows to obliterate the real meaning of an important symbol. Probably the most misunderstood image in America is the Statue of Liberty, which is surely burdened with more wrong ideas than any other symbol in our history.
First and foremost, Lady Liberty was never designed as a welcome mat for immigrants, those huddled masses about whom we hear so much sentimentality. The real name of the statue is "Liberty Enlightening the World" which states the true meaning.
Indeed, the sculptor's intent was for the statue to inspire millions around the world to emulate the freedom of the United States, not to leave home and come here. The statue is at heart a revolutionary symbol for the oppressed to throw off their chains and create their own democracy under law. Sculptor Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi believed deeply in republican government and dreamed of having it in his native France, remarking, "I will try to glorify the Republic and Liberty over there, in the hope that someday I will find it again here."
Further, the Emma Lazarus poem, "The New Colossus" which is a hymn to immigration, is not inscribed on the base of the statue, as some would have us believe, and has no connection at all with Bartholdi's vision. The statue was inaugurated in 1886 quite adequately with no Emma Lazarus. The poem's inclusion was a completely separate event, dedicated by some friends of the poet in 1903 after her death.
The Statue of Liberty's intent to inspire people to build their own democratic societies is even more important now that the planet is home to over six billion persons. The huddled masses cannot all be saved by immigration to America. The rescue paradigm of immigration is clearly no longer appropriate, if it ever was. The numbers of needy poor worldwide are simply too high.
In fact, the "wretched refuse of your teeming shore" threatens to become a permanent underclass, since even the most basic educational standards in selecting immigrants have been disregarded. Because of the emphasis on "family reunification," one-third of current legal immigrants have not graduated from high school -- hardly the ideal newcomers to a modern society in the 21st century.
Each of those immigrants without a high school education will consume an average of $89,000 in services beyond what is paid in taxes, according to a National Academy of Sciences study.
The Lazarus poem should be removed from Bedloe Island and banished to a dark corner of the Smithsonian as an artifact of another time. The poem perpetuates the myth that America can grow in population forever, which is a deeply damaging idea. The physical requirements of so many people are destroying the nation's environmental carrying capacity and our natural heritage of inspiring open vistas.
Removing the plaque would be an important step toward reclaiming our heritage. "Liberty Enlightening the World" is a far more noble sentiment than "Mother of Exiles" which celebrates victimhood. We must face the limits of our overcrowded world with creativity and realism. America's message for this century must be to urge local development, e.g. through microlending. On the crowded planet, relieving poverty where people live must be the aim.
It's high time that America provided better environmental leadership regarding overpopulation, and removing the obsolete Lazarus poem from the Statue of Liberty would be a good place to start.
Brenda Walker is a writer living in California. She is the project director of www.ImmigrationsHumanCost.org.
Post a Comment