-
Login
-
Digital Edition
-
Print Edition
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
U.S. needs immigrant labor
TweetBy Winifred Chin
McClatchy-Tribune
Arizona’s new immigration law is reminiscent of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred people of Chinese ancestry from coming to the United States. Those already here — many of them having built the Pacific Railroad — also had to carry papers around at all times.
It was not until 1943 that the Exclusion Laws were repealed; China and the United States were allies in Word War II then, and it seemed inconsistent for the United States not to permit Chinese people into the country. An annual quota allowing Chinese people to emigrate here was an obvious concession for our government.
Throughout history, America has relied on immigrant groups to fill a myriad of cheap, manual labor jobs. The Chinese contribution to the Pacific Railroad cannot be denied, nor can the contribution of our Mexican neighbors, from agriculture to construction to garment work.
Billions in losses
In agriculture alone, without the help of Latino workers, American farmers stand to lose billions of dollars in rotted fruits and crops — and possibly their farms as well. The rest of American society would share the burden by paying higher prices for produce that reaches the market.
Mexicans and other immigrant groups also send home hard-earned cash to feed their families, just as the Chinese have continued to do since their arrival in this country. This is “foreign aid” in its most basic, personal form, where the dollars sent go directly to the assistance of families that need it.
No immigrant comes to this country to work for peanuts. And legal or not, no immigrant is happy to leave loved ones behind. Immigrants come because they have no other way to support their families.
Except for American Indians and slaves, we were all once immigrants, too. Have we become so comfortable now that we no longer hear the cries of others who are seeking the same ideals and opportunities that once attracted us?
Winifred Chin, a research affiliate in Asian/Pacific/American Studies at New York University, co-authored “Paper Son: One Man’s Story,” about Chinese immigration during the Exclusion Era. She wrote this for Progressive Media Project, a source of liberal commentary on domestic and international issues; it is affiliated with The Progressive magazine.Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments
I rather have an immigrant living next to me than a bigot.
By the way, the term "illegal alien" is a code term used by bigots because it helps them in dehumanizing a person. Bigots are clever people who use fear and hate words to control public opinion.
Some bigots hide their hate by calling themselves conservative Christians or patriots, they may even wrap themselves in the flag.
Bigots are bullies who feel superior to Jews, Blacks, Irish, Italians, Immigrants, Gays, Russians, Arabas, etc..In a nutshell, bigots hate themselves.
Reasonable people should not hate bigots because they too were created in the image of God.
Pretty stupid post...folks came from all over the world to the US and became citizens and followed US rules and became an asset to America. Quit kidding yourself that all these mexicans are coming here to pick lettuce. If they become citizens and pay their way like everyone else, that would be great, instead of looking for entitlements and working off the books whenever they can. Try going to mexico [or the middle east] and do what they attempt to do here. There are more mexicans in Chicago than in Tijuana and they aren't all picking tomatoes. No one cares if they came here for a better life as long as they abide by the rules. If there wasn't a problem, Arizona would not have bothered to implement this new legislation..........
Winifred Chin’s opening statement is demonstrably incorrect. The Chinese Exclusion Act altered US federal immigration policy, singled out a particular race and nationality, and restricted access to legal entry into the US. The Arizona law does none of these things. In every important respect the Arizona law is NOT at all similar to the Chinese Exclusion Act.
The whole argument can be resolved by finding the political will to enact appropriate reform of our current immigration policy; however, any reasonable reform must be predicated on four completely reasonable principles.
First, application for legal entry into the United States is something that is ALWAYS done from outside the United States or while visiting the United States legally. No person who is in the United States in violation of immigration law should ever be granted legal status without leaving and then applying for legal re-entry from the outside via the appropriate and legal procedures.
Second, any person who has violated immigration laws of the United States and who is caught in the United States illegally must be deported and FOREVER BARRED from re-entry. This does not mean the United States must engage in “round-ups” or “mass deportations”, it just means that illegal aliens must be deported as they are caught.
Third, any reformed immigration policy must absolutely recognize that NO person who is in the United State illegally is entitled to ANY benefits or services supported by public funds; and that identification and proof of legal status is an absolute requirement for application for any such benefits and services. This in no way implies that emergency services and emergency healthcare should be withheld.
Fourth, the privilege of citizenship can no-longer be granted to children born in the United States when the mother is not authorized to be here legally under the jurisdiction of the United States; and this does not violate the 14th Amendment.
Once these four principles are accepted, I am willing to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement streamlining and making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world. What we can not have is any law which provides any incentive to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.
Case in point..
Fear:
" there are more mexicans in Chicago than in Tijuana" --Tijuana has a population of about five million. Chicago's entire "hispanic" population is about 800,000.--
Mith: Undocumented immigrants don't want to become US citizens.
Fact: They DO want to become citizens so they dont have to live in fear of deportation.
Mith: Undomumented immigrants are lazy and pay no taxes.
Fact: They pay property taxes when rent is paid. When they buy milk, bread, gasoline, etc. they pay taxes.
There needs to be immigration reform with a path to "earned" --pay a fine, lean english, stay out of touble-- citizenship.
The Jim Crow law in Arizona makes all latinos --30% of its population-- a suspect of being in the country without "legal documents" Asking latino war veterans and current service men and women for their documentation is not going to be pretty when the Arizona law takes effect next month.
Not too long ago, the majority felt ok saying: "Sorry, We Serve no Blacks" Next month in Arizona the majority feels ok saying: "Papers please"
USA1, First, you make it sound like the only diaspora to the US comes from Mexico. Second, you choose Mexico's immigration laws to discuss bigotry.
Now, on to your second point. "The majority didn't think it was ok saying -- sorry we serve no blacks-- Ok, so why did it take since the 1860's to the 1960's to change that? one hundred years past while the majority rejected the humiliation blacks endured and they let it happen anyway.
Your 3rd point: Yeah, I need to read more history.