Jeanfromfillmore
12-24-2009, 02:58 PM
Our immigration system should put Americans first
By Guest Columnist
December 23, 2009, 8:00AM
On Monday, The Oregonian editorialized in support of Rigoberto Padilla – a young illegal immigrant who, after being arrested for driving under the influence, received a one-year reprieve from deportation. "Like an estimated 65,000 other illegal aliens who graduate from high school in the United States each year," the editorial asserted, "Padilla has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the U.S. economy – and that should be our overriding concern."
Wrong. Our overriding concern should be economic opportunities for American citizens, not illegal immigrants.
As the editorial noted, Padilla's parents smuggled him to America when he was a child. Many believe such youths shouldn't suffer the consequences of their parents' crime. Hence the federal "DREAM" Act – co-sponsored by Oregon's Reps. Earl Blumenauer and David Wu and long supported by The Oregonian's editorial board. If passed, the act will give young illegal immigrants brought here as children in-state tuition and an expedited "path to citizenship."
This would be grossly unfair to American citizens. Granted, many illegal-immigrant youths are in a tough spot – one not of their making. Still, our nation does those youths no wrong when it devotes itself first and foremost to the interests of its own people. Sanctioning the presence of illegal immigrants like Rigoberto Padilla would allow them to compete for the finite numbers of U.S. jobs and college-admission slots that rightfully belong to Americans.
More, the DREAM Act would undermine U.S. citizenship. Citizenship, after all, is more than a commodity. It is more than a technicality – more than the documentation needed to access America's bounty. Citizenship, rather, is a sacred trust – a contract binding Americans to their nation, and vice versa.
Central to that contract, as columnist Daniel Larison writes, is the idea that "fellow citizens have more obligations to one another than they have to non-citizens." When our leaders would, as with the DREAM Act, compromise the rule of law to benefit non-citizens here illegally – to, indeed, give them access to Americans' jobs and educations – they would violate those obligations egregiously.
Also consider: the DREAM Act would benefit not only illegal immigrants who were brought to America as children, but millions who came voluntarily as adults. As introduced this year in the House, the Act would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status at any age, and require no proof that they came to America at the time they claimed. Upon acceptance of their applications, the illegal immigrants would become conditional lawful permanent residents – authorized to hold U.S. jobs, and protected from deportation. All this would render the Act less a humanitarian law targeted to innocent youths than a broad, general amnesty – an amnesty with the potential to stick our nation with millions of fraudulently-legalized people.
"We need an immigration system built to stoke our economy, and our country," the editorial concluded, "not to diminish either one."
And we do. But contra the DREAM Act, that system should put citizens – not illegal immigrants – first.
Richard F. LaMountain, of Cedar Mill, serves on the board of directors of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/our_immigration_system_should.html
By Guest Columnist
December 23, 2009, 8:00AM
On Monday, The Oregonian editorialized in support of Rigoberto Padilla – a young illegal immigrant who, after being arrested for driving under the influence, received a one-year reprieve from deportation. "Like an estimated 65,000 other illegal aliens who graduate from high school in the United States each year," the editorial asserted, "Padilla has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the U.S. economy – and that should be our overriding concern."
Wrong. Our overriding concern should be economic opportunities for American citizens, not illegal immigrants.
As the editorial noted, Padilla's parents smuggled him to America when he was a child. Many believe such youths shouldn't suffer the consequences of their parents' crime. Hence the federal "DREAM" Act – co-sponsored by Oregon's Reps. Earl Blumenauer and David Wu and long supported by The Oregonian's editorial board. If passed, the act will give young illegal immigrants brought here as children in-state tuition and an expedited "path to citizenship."
This would be grossly unfair to American citizens. Granted, many illegal-immigrant youths are in a tough spot – one not of their making. Still, our nation does those youths no wrong when it devotes itself first and foremost to the interests of its own people. Sanctioning the presence of illegal immigrants like Rigoberto Padilla would allow them to compete for the finite numbers of U.S. jobs and college-admission slots that rightfully belong to Americans.
More, the DREAM Act would undermine U.S. citizenship. Citizenship, after all, is more than a commodity. It is more than a technicality – more than the documentation needed to access America's bounty. Citizenship, rather, is a sacred trust – a contract binding Americans to their nation, and vice versa.
Central to that contract, as columnist Daniel Larison writes, is the idea that "fellow citizens have more obligations to one another than they have to non-citizens." When our leaders would, as with the DREAM Act, compromise the rule of law to benefit non-citizens here illegally – to, indeed, give them access to Americans' jobs and educations – they would violate those obligations egregiously.
Also consider: the DREAM Act would benefit not only illegal immigrants who were brought to America as children, but millions who came voluntarily as adults. As introduced this year in the House, the Act would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status at any age, and require no proof that they came to America at the time they claimed. Upon acceptance of their applications, the illegal immigrants would become conditional lawful permanent residents – authorized to hold U.S. jobs, and protected from deportation. All this would render the Act less a humanitarian law targeted to innocent youths than a broad, general amnesty – an amnesty with the potential to stick our nation with millions of fraudulently-legalized people.
"We need an immigration system built to stoke our economy, and our country," the editorial concluded, "not to diminish either one."
And we do. But contra the DREAM Act, that system should put citizens – not illegal immigrants – first.
Richard F. LaMountain, of Cedar Mill, serves on the board of directors of Oregonians for Immigration Reform.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/our_immigration_system_should.html