Yes

by Alvaro Ramos

Created on: June 06, 2010   Last Updated: June 07, 2010

When it comes to the topic of immigration law and reform, the present climate in the United States is highly emotional to say the least. After two years of heated and emotional debate over health care, we in the United States now await the political firefight that is sure to take place over what is to be done about the immigration problem in this nation.

The daunting and complex nature of the task at hand would naturally dictate an intelligent, methodical, and clinical approach to remedy the problem that neither party has seriously thought about fixing. It is unfortunate, however, that the adjectives that we are most likely to experience in the upcoming firestorm will be emotional, reactionary and inflammatory.

The battle cries from the anti-illegal immigration crowd have increasingly become infused with strains of nativist populism, and sometimes, outright xenophobia. On the other side of the issue, immigration reform advocates often focus the heart of their arguments on appeals to the national pathos, rarely wanting to deal with the logistical realities of a problem that hits them too close to home.

It is interesting that the most inflammatory and pathos driven rantings on both sides of the issue, have had the effect of strengthening each other and all but silencing the more pragmatic and level-headed voices in the debate.

In the upcoming national discussion, there are sure to be aspects of the immigration problem that will have no easy answers, and worse yet, allow for no easy compromises. This means that as a nation, we should make short, efficient business of the easier and more obvious immigration related problems.

One such issue is whether or not to detain and then deport illegal immigrants who commit minor crimes. If we allow extremists and reactionaries on either side of the debate to dominate issues such as this, we are sure to miss out on the most intelligent, and dare I say, most progressive solutions.

If we begin with the premise that the United States of America is a nation like any other, that is ruled by law and driven by the best interests of its own citizens, we can come to the conclusion that citizenship is not guaranteed or owed to anyone not born here. While we relish and enjoy the idea of a nation composed of men from all nations, this ideal neither obliges nor requires us to open our borders and nation to one and all.

Once we have accepted the idea of sovereignty and the right of a nation to decide who becomes its new citizens, we are now left to decide what we define as minor crimes. Although we can choose to make this a complicated issue, a practical approach would be to define minor crime as one ranging from a regulatory infraction, on up to a criminal misdemeanor.

Given the nature and variety of what can be called an infraction, and given that only in the most uncommon situations does an infraction require incarceration, the smart decision would be to not use infractions as a reason to initiate deportation of illegal immigrants.

It seems excessive and perhaps criminal in itself for a nation in which so many benefit from the direct services of undocumented workers (i.e. landscapers, restaurant workers, day laborers, etc...), to create an atmosphere in which a human being's life could be so dramatically altered by a jaywalking infraction, or a non-alcohol related traffic offense.

Many on the anti-illegal immigration side would be sure to object and demand a more legalistic approach. The drawback would surely be that not as many Americans would support such an initiative. In order to gain the support of a larger majority of the American public, and thus make the initiative more enforceable, the practical approach would be to only use minor crimes that are misdemeanors to initiate the deportation process.

So why would we bother using misdemeanors to initiate deportation of undocumented persons? To answer that, we can consider that as citizens of a nation where procreation is not controlled or legislated, we have no control over who is born in this nation. As a consequence, people who are born in the United States of America are born into the American citizenry through no action or good work of their own.

However, when a person is applying for U.S. citizenship, is this not an opportunity to improve the fabric of the citizenry by establishing certain standards that we find desirable in our society?

It is totally understandable and desirable that a nation, when deciding who can obtain naturalization or citizenship, would establish a baseline of conduct and societal behavior. Operating with the understanding that like all nations, and perhaps more than most, the United States already has its own home-grown felons and misdemeanants, we can and should require that the commission of certain acts or behaviors should automatically disqualify a foreigner from the possibility of citizenship. In this case, those behaviors and acts should begin with misdemeanors.

There is no doubt that many people due to youth or poor judgment, commit misdemeanors and later correct their ways and go on to become productive and even excellent citizens. Nevertheless, in an effort to build the best possible citizenry, it is only natural that a nation would not want to take in another nation’s prostitutes, drug abusers, drunk drivers, or petty thieves.

Activists for the undocumented can find comfort in the fact that with the exception of their ilegal immigrant status, the majority of undocumented people in the United States are not guilty of, and will never be guilty of committing a misdemeanor. They will also find that the American public will find it much easier to sympathize with the realities of the illegal population in search of opportunity, that has had a less desirable segment of its population weeded out.

Learn more about this author, Alvaro Ramos.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.