In light of the recent hoopla over immigration, I thought a little Sunday night story might be useful.
Alfredo Quiñones (disclosure: a former student of my father) arrived in the US illegally in 1987. He jumped the border from Mexico into California to work in the fields and on a welding crew. Since then, he’s, well, done other things.
Heaped with research fellowships and academic honors, he graduated [from Harvard Medical School] cum laude and, now a newly minted American citizen with an infant daughter in tow, gave the commencement speech for his Harvard med class of 1999. Internship and a surgical residency at the University of California, San Francisco, followed. It was here that Quiñones found his medical mission. As a second-year resident, he was brought in to help translate for the Spanish-speaking family of a patient with a malignant brain tumor….
Quiñones pursues a punishing clinical and research workload. He generally drives in before dawn from his home in rural Belair, Maryland, an hour north of Baltimore. En route, he’ll call his research collaborators in Spain. On a good day, he might make it home again by 11 p.m., long after his three young children have gone to bed. Tonight, scheduling an emergency surgery for a tumor patient who’s having seizures, he expects to still be in the OR at 1 a.m. “What can I do?” he says. “This is my life. This is what I signed up to do. I’d hope that if my own family member was a patient then somebody else would do that for me.” … With his research, Quiñones is essentially exploring the possibility of leaving Cushing’s century-old notion of brain surgery behind, replacing knives with noninvasive stem cell therapies that could conceivably destroy tumors and repair damaged tissue.
That’s right, he’s a brain surgeon. He’s trying to save people’s lives — and he’s succeeding. America is a better place because of Alfredo Quiñones. And if he had been deported instead of going to college and medical school, it is likely that some Americans who are alive today because of his skills would, instead, be dead.
So memo to Jim Ogonowski: they’re not all here “to take advantage of our services.” And if, God forbid, you ever find yourself with a brain tumor, one of them might just save your life.
Just about every immigrant I’ve ever met contributes, though not in so spectacular a fashion. Factory workers who show up early, work all the overtime asked of them, never complain…just about every one of them has been a good hire, and quite a few had no, or rudimentary English. Good people.
<
p>
American xenophobia in action is ugly to watch.
Followed the rules, followed the law, earned his citizenship.
<
p>
<
p>
So, we gave anmensty to 2.7 million in 1986, now we are flooded with 12 million plus.
<
p>
Our own contractors, landscapers, and laborors will all tell you that they are undercut and out of work continually because of the number of fly-by-night operations manned by illegal aliens (mexican and brazillian) who all work a below legal wage with no benefits or insurance.
<
p>
Safety and building codes are violated. OSHA and other worker safety regulations are ignored. Illegals work and live in near slavery conditions (unable to go to government for help). Customers are ripped off by getting unfinished or improperly done jobs.
<
p>
And this is just in the laborer trades.
<
p>
So what do we do now.. give ’em all a “road to citizenship” (AMNESTY) and watch the next wave come in?
<
p>
We need a plan to determine what workers we need, and design an immigration program that fills those needs.
<
p>
The solution is not to encourage the dangerous system of having people have to break the laws and live under the radar for he rest of their lives.
<
p>
This has created a huge subculture of people living outside the system, accepting benefits of society without paying their fare share into that society (both in terms of paying taxes and in terms of following rules of the society).
<
p>
It has also lowered the pay scale of hard working laborers and contractors throughout the country, to the point where those who try to follow state and local building and safety regulations cannot compete.
<
p>
Citizenship in our country is a great achievement that many strive for and earn every year. Citizenship should not be something that can be stolen.
<
p>
Most of us got to accept it as a gift of birth, and offer it freely to many throughout the world who ask of us to let them come here and add to the greatness of the whole.
<
p>
But those who break in, and then expect us to accept them as equal to they who worked hard to earn the privilege.. diminish all.
<
p>
The plight of the mexican workers in Mexico is a problem that we have been dealing with for years. NAFTA was supposed to help “raise the tide” so to speak. Instead, when the corruption south of the border got unbearable, the jobs went to Asia and the same problems that initiated the 1986 immigration act have reoccurred.
<
p>
For decades, I’ve worked with people from Ethiopia, The Dominican Republic, Cuba, Cambodia, Palestine, India and those are just the countries I can name offhand. I’m talking hundred of people up and down the Merrimack valley.
<
p>
Mostly in the printing and electronics industries. I know what it is to work, being involved with 5 startups, 4 of which remain going concerns to this day. The ethic is: you do whatever needs to be done, whatever it takes.
<
p>
Now I don’t know if any of those people were here illegally, especially in my earlier years, but I can tell you from my personal experience that these people were good workers, pleasant people to have around, and great team players. Calling them criminal is a gross distortion.
<
p>
I’ve trained people who have no English, in fact, I worked with one woman who learned her excellent English from watching soap operas, she told me. (More than I could manage, and I have some game.)
<
p>
And I imagine it’s beacause these people are too afraid to fail, being so far from what they know and far from the societal support of family and clan. They’ve take a huge risk and are too afraid to fail. They pulled their weight, and then some.
for some reality as opposed to anectdotal feel good bleeding heart stuff.
Immigrants who pay by the rules are not the same as those who break the law .
….issues would exist in the trades regardless of the number of undocumented workers and it is disingenuous at best and worst case flat out dishonest to suggest that the major problems are caused by “fly by nights” and to leave out that just as major a problem is the degree to which “legitimate” companies rely on this labor.
<
p>
Second, you have offered nothing more meaningful than the anecdotal example you seek to rebut. Cries of “no amnesty” are impotent and irrelevant. What do you suggest we do? What is your plan for the 12 million people already here? Round ’em up and ship ’em out? Who is going to to the rounding and shipping and who is going to pay for it? Are you prepared for the federal courts to screech to a halt to deal with the appeals and petitions? Are you prepared to pay more in taxes only to be faced with the rising costs of goods and services as well? How about the detention issue? Where are 12 million people going to be detained pending deportation? What about all of the orphans that will be created by this process? And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Seems to me the net result will be more expensive and disruptive that an amnesty ever could be. What is your better plan?
<
p>
Strawman:
<
p>
This canard (that enforcement of existing law, and that securing our borders will disrupt society, piss off our neighbors, and bring commerce to a grinding halt) is unsupportable. The shear witlessness of this line of argument has become downright boring.
…then by all means provide your plan for the deportation of 12 million people.
<
p>
I and everyone else who lives in the rational world is patiently waiting.
<
p>
And you might want to look up the meaning of strawman, because last time I checked the 12 million people that would need to be deported are very real.
First off, I needn’t provide any “plan for the deportation of 12 million people”, because I have never suggested it.
<
p>
Second, show me a citation where “the deportation of 12 million people” is a plank in a major party platform, or is endorsed by a top-tier candidate.
If you are not calling for the deportation of the 12 million existing illegal aliens, then what should be done with them instead? Let’s hear a concrete suggestion.
…not fair at all, just more deflection and obfuscation unfortunately.
….the laws is detaining and deporting 12 million people, plain and simple. Not doing so would hardly be strict enforcement which is indeed a plank in the “no amnesty” platform.
<
p>
You are the one who called my comment a “strawman” argument and I wasn’t even talking to you in the first place, so if you want to insert yourself you get to deal with what is already on the table, so you either must deal with the 12 million people or step off. Otherwise you are only attempting to deflect a challenge you (and those you politically support) can’t possibly answer by trying to create a smokescreen. I can see right through it however.
<
p>
Still waiting to hear how strict enforcement is going to be accomplished. Guess I’ll be waiting a while.
<
p>
You don’t have to “round up everyone”.
<
p>
You start enforcing the laws as they come up (I believe Jim has said this as well).
<
p>
You find 300 somewhere, you deal with them. You find another couple somewhere else.. you deal with them.
<
p>
The word gets out, and the rest decide either to get themselves legal or move on.
….you are not actually dealing with the problem and creating a silent sub-class of people which will eventaully come back to bite us. Your last assertion is literally laughable.
<
p>
Just like I said, the platform is pandering lip service.
that was the point of the post.
<
p>
You’re dealing with people breaking the law the same way you deal with anyone breaking the law.. catch who you can, and drive the others on.
<
p>
“the platform is pandering lip service”???
<
p>
Don’t know what this means, but it seems to “pander” to the left wing, so I’m sure it helps you.
<
p>
From the center and unenrolled point of view, it sorta sounds technical and wanky.. which also drives drives them to the right as well.
<
p>
So, its all good.
….so you aren’t actually addressing the problem at all, you are just contributing to making it worse and pretending to be doing something. Thank you for finally admitting it.
<
p>
Yes, you do know what pandering lip service means, I don’t buy your attempt at spinning it away for one second.
Then we can negotiate the terms by which these people might obtain legal status.
…..easier said than done, of course, but at least an approch that can exist in the rational world.
Breed a sentient but obedient genetically engineered animal to sniff out illegals and gently and humanely carry them home.
<
p>
Because that’s about as realistic as “controlling” 5,000 miles of border. The Communists struggled to seal off the 100 mile perimeter around West Berlin.
<
p>
The immigration debate is like abortion — we’ve seen time and again that the Republicans don’t want to do anything about what they perceive as a problem, they just want to complain about it.
..but let’s take this ridiculous example and do the math:
<
p>
Approximately 5000 people escaped over the Berlin Wall during it’s existance.
An equivalent number at our southern border would be less than 1,200 illegal entries per year, versus the 700,000 we now tolerate. (estimates vary)
<
p>
Now here’s your opportunity for a clever rejoinder!
Perhaps a shocking hypothetical, like thuggish, jackbooted border agents shooting little brown children as they hang piteously from a 700 mile stretch of bigots and barbed wire.
That’ll get you some 6’s fer sure.
Here’s a rejoinder. You want to spend several dozen billion dollars to build (not staff or maintain, just build) an armed wall that won’t keep people out. Why?
… something to stir up the base with fear and they the gay marriage thing is running out of steam, at least in the northeast.
Scurry back to the archives, Mr Lynne, and dredge up any example you can find of me stirring up fear over same-sex marriage.
Giddyap now!
…people do.
And yes, I do want to spend the money to secure the border.
Your unsubstantiated claim that it won’t work notwithstanding, I believe that it will.
The wall didn’t work in East Berlin, but it will in our case because you believe it. Not the best rationale for flushing dozens of billions of dollars down the toilet.
<
p>
I just can’t understand somebody who watched the Big Dig thinking that building a wall hundreds of miles long will be done quickly, cheaply, or well.
First- to state that The Berlin Wall didn’t work is to ignore the historical record. It was constructed with evil intent, it came down through the winds of political change, but it most certainly prevented most people from crossing, which was it’s purpose.
<
p>
Second- equating a secure U.S. border with The Berlin Wall is flat-out dishonest.
It purposefully ignores the difference between people who are attempting to emigrate (illegally) purely for economic gain with those who were fleeing for their lives from a frighteningly oppressive regime.
<
p>
Further, it intentionally mischaracterizes the motives of those whose endorse it, smearing them with a predictable leftist smudge of “racist” or “nativist”.
The analogy is immature and irrelevant.
<
p>
Third – The Big Dig happened in Massachusetts. That there would be so many fingers in the pie should have come as no surprise.
i saw the east german frontier when it was still a frontier. i passed through it. do you really want to spend the huge cash outlay to build, maintain and patrol a neutral zone, glass-topped walls, razor wire, mines on both sides, military snipers every few hundred yards? don’t forget to confescate people’s cameras and camera phones if they snap a picture of it or the protective apparatus. don’t forget to strip them of their ID and leave them in locked rooms just because.
<
p>
i’ve seen that system. part of my family lived on the other side of it. i dont’ want that here. neither should you. and that is what it would take.
He wants to spend money on barbed wire fences instead of on health care for poor children, and poor pregnant women with SCHIP.
lol.
maybe og can employ poor pregnant women as border patrol agents in the more threadbare stretches along the fence. they will be usefully and gainfully employed, and he gets cheap eyes on the ground. and if they drop their babies while on duty, the plentiful ‘n cheap illegals walking by can handle the delivery, thus saving taxpayers the cost of an uninsured using our expensive emergency room facilities. it’s a win-win-win!
But it certainly isn’t useless or ineffective.
Building a fence along it means blocking people and cattle on this from access to WATER.
it’ll make privatizing that bit of water all the easier.
Let’s not also forget that 40% – 50% of Illegal immigrants cross the border legally and overstay their welcome.
<
p>
People should check out the NSFW, biased and entertaining look by Libertarian-slanted Penn & Teller at Immigration.
…the East German security measures were intended to keep East German people in East Germany or East Berlin, not necessarily to keep people (West Germans or other Nato personel) out There’s a significant difference in the strategy that would be used as between the two.
That’s what the French believed they were doing with the Maginot line, constructed after WWI. The Germans went around it.
<
p>
That’s what the Chinese believed they were doing with the Great Wall. It leaked like a sieve.
<
p>
I suspect that any 700 mile wall along the US’s southern border would be about as effective. The Europeans have a problem with illegal immigration from northern Africa, and the Mediterranean hasn’t proven to be much of a barrier. Illegals come through Italy from Libya and the Gibralter area from Morocco, both of which are relatively narrow, and the Canary Islands off western Africa (the Canaries are part of Spain).
A wall which forces people to “go around it” is obviously working. A wall which “leaks like a sieve” is obviously NOT working. In the fist case one could argue more wall is needed.
<
p>
Maybe this might help. I would simply stop making it so easy for illegal immigrants to be here. Stop naming whole cities as “sanctuaries”. Stop offering in-state tuition, and stop issuing drivers licenses. Stop ignoring the immigration status of those who are arrested for petty or any other crimes. If it weren’t so easy to hide out here, many would return to their own countries, and many would not come here in the first place. I am a supporter of legal immigration. I think some of the best arguments for enforcement of current immigration laws are made by legal immigrants.
A wall which forces people to “go around it” is obviously working.
<
p>
It may have been more convenient for the Germans to go around the Maginot line through the low countries, but it certainly did not require them to do so.
<
p>
My example of the Mediterranean water barrier was incomplete, for which I apologize. It should be obvious that, even if a land route was not available for aliens to enter the US illegally from the south, there are rather substantial coastlines along the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific that smugglers could use to transport illegals from Mexico into the US.
<
p>
It seems to me that the only way for the US to stem illegal immigration is for the US to stop decimating the Mexican economy–particularly in the agricultural sector–and to help Mexico boost its economy. The US isn’t going to do either of those, of course–there are too many powerful economic interests in the US making too much money off the current state of affairs. So, you’re just going to have to put up with illegal immigration for some time to come.
If, and only if, we can control the borders so as to prevent new illegal immigration, we can studiously ignore existing illegal immigrants. After a generation passes, they will be gone and their kids will be citizens.
….that is a big if. Secondly, how you think we can possibly, on any level, ignore 3-5% of the population, and call it studious is completely awe inspiring. By all means let’s commit to fifty years of incredible social and financial inefficiency, but we’ll do it with our reading glasses on.
<
p>
It’s easy! You just have to be able to get past the complete and utter moral depravity of it. On the other hand, if one can actually believe that another human being can be “illegal” then maybe it’s not such a stretch.
<
p>
1. You build the wall, along the entirety of the 2,400 mile border between the US.
<
p>
2. Guard towers every 50 yards or so; the guards have loaded weapons at all times
<
p>
3. Mine field in front of the whole wall
<
p>
So there you go. Congratulations, a solution. Have at it.
<
p>
Anything short of that, you’re wasting your time. The size of the border patrol has tripled in the Clinton and Bush administrations; undocumented immigration continues to rise. The border patrol started beefing up the patrols at the populated areas (like San Diego and El Paso); migration moved to the Arizona desert. 5,000 migrants deaths have been recorded there since ’94 — who knows how many were never known. Hmmm…..this seems to reek of moral depravity too…..
<
p>
BTW, if we ever really do build a complete wall, expect revolution in Mexico.
<
p>
I find it so interesting that so many get themselves in a tizzy about folks coming across the border from Mexico but never seem to suggest ways to improve the economic conditions of Mexico & Latin America so that people do not want to cross the border in the first place. Marshall Plan anyone?
<
p>
Apparently it was much more fun to throw them under the bus with NAFTA — 1.5 million Mexican farmers out of business since NAFTA and climbing — and send them Wal-Mart in return.
Please learn the concept of an adjective. “Illegal immigrant” does not mean that a person is illegal, it means that they are an “illegal immigrant.”
on the right — including the Republican candidate for MA-05, use “illegal” as a noun. I find that to be distasteful. I used it in the title of this post to make a point.
I’ll agree that the use of the adjective to include the modified noun is not ideal, but note that the abbreviation is indicative of nothing except that common adjective-noun combinations are often shortened in this way as a form of verbal shorthand.
<
p>
In other words, it is small beer, and not somehow “dehumanizing.”
Please learn the concept of paying attention to what goes on in the world around you. You know darn well people use “illegal” as a noun, in reference to undocumented persons.
…I know that in German adjectives have oftentimes been transformed into nouns. Abbreviations of the adjectives have been, as well.
<
p>
I haven’t done a study of it regarding American English–it’s probably because the action is second nature to me. But I’m sure that it occurs in the US as well. Example: “black,” when it is clear from context that the reference is to a black person.
for “right handed pitcher.”
<
p>
This is common.