Political discourse on immigration reform remains remarkably limited and short-sighted. Opponents of the act tend to characterize it as a gross injustice. Bending our nations laws to accommodate illegal aliens cannot, in their view, be justified. Uneducated and illiterate Mexicans have little to contribute to modern American; they will burden our public schools, hospitals, and welfare system while paying minimal taxes. Ultimately, these economic and social arguments veil either racist attitudes towards Hispanics or an acute lack of foresight and political understanding. Laws are meant to be adapted to respond to changing circumstances. With sluggish population growth, a faltering recovery, and massive budget deficits, America could benefit greatly by an influx of new citizens, even if they are generally unskilled and uneducated. It is ironic that many of the same Republicans who so vehemently espouse free trade (e.g. NAFTA) oppose looser immigration policy.
Unfortunately, the other side tends to avoid these arguments. Rather than using logical economic arguments to support a looser immigration policy, liberals have made the battle over immigration an emotional one. In their view, we cannot possibly allow young children to be deported, nor can we permit poor mothers to be punished for being here illegally. However, our government is under no compulsion to help illegal immigrants, especially since they have already violated our nation’s laws. Amnesty is just one of many policy options with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. In my opinion, total amnesty is problematic. Having 12 to 20 million illegals suddenly become citizens would be disastrous. However this does not mean that there are not other more gradual solutions to the immigration problem. Elements of the DREAM act would be important steps in the right direction (especially the part offering citizenship to minors who serve in the military), but unfortunately the bill failed in December of 2010.
Pundits like to focus on our nation’s own history, pointing out that we are a “nation of immigrants,” apparently trying to establish an emotional and historical connection with illegals. I think that it is also useful to draw on other histories besides our own (this removes some of our own biases from the analysis, gives us a greater breadth of history to explore, and gives us the benefit of retrospect, an element often lacking in the study of our somewhat recent US history). Under the Roman Empire, citizenship was granted to auxiliaries who had served in the army for 25 years. This, coupled with processes of Romanization and economic consolidation, helped shape a tightly knit empire that endured for nearly 500 years. Newly dubbed citizens would return to their local communities, enjoying the legal, social, and economic benefits of being “Roman,” and would become local elites (decuriones).
By sharing the benefits of citizenship and gradually extending incentives to provincials, Rome helped encourage unity within her empire. Economic and cultural exchange with Rome promoted the creation of various provincial identities that in some sense had become “Romanized.” Military and political institutions mirrored these cultural developments. The incorporation of client kingdoms into the empire was an important part of Flavian and Antonine policy. When Trajan annexed Arabia in 106 AD, his armies began building roads and constructing forts, “Romanizing” the landscape and in turn its population. Roman policies and attitudes towards citizenship created unity by establishing legal, political, economic, and cultural consistency, encouraging social cohesion.
One of the most frequent complaints about the presence of illegal immigrants is that these hordes of Spanish-speaking foreigners will not integrate themselves into “American” culture. Without a doubt, any incorporation into society will be a lengthy process; it will probably not result in a Mexican-American identity that is seamlessly integrated with the rest of America. However, we must not neglect the possible economic and political benefits of this integration. If we look to Roman history for guidance, it seems that gradually extending citizenship and using it as an incentive is probably the right move.
No comments:
Post a Comment