May 2006     

An Immigration Distress Signal

By Gary Palmer

In the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and other Hispanic immigrants, staged demonstrations in several states, protesting U.S. immigration policy and new state and federal legislation dealing with illegal immigration. But, when Hispanic school children raised an upside-down American flag underneath a Mexican flag on the flagpole of the Montebello Unified School in Montebello, California, they may have inadvertently created a national symbol for our struggle with the issue of illegal immigration. An American flag hanging upside-down is a distress signal.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin." "But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people." - Teddy Roosevelt in 1907

If the activists behind the demonstrations supporting illegal immigrants, wanted a symbol to further enflame the passions of the American public over the immigration issue, these students gave them one. And, running it upside-down underneath the Mexican flag creates a picture that says more about the issue than any number of words can say.

Given the images of the flag flying over the ruins of the World Trade Center, and hanging over the side of a still-smoldering Pentagon, and given that over 2,000 American soldiers have come home in flag draped-coffins, the disgraceful display of the American flag will only serve to strengthen the American public's demand for securing our borders.

To further emphasize the brazenness of these foreign demonstrators, thousands of them carried Mexican flags, and/or anti-American signs that read, "This is stolen land." In other words, they believe that much of the Western part of the United States really belongs to Mexico, and they are here to reclaim it. Obviously, the demonstrators could use lessons on how to win friends and influence the American public.

I am sympathetic with the desires of Hispanic immigrants who are here to work, and well aware of the need for them to help fill jobs in our booming economy. However, those feelings are secondary to my concerns about preserving our national sovereignty, and the ability to govern ourselves without being manipulated by foreigners, especially foreigners demonstrating against our laws. Moreover, it is especially galling to have illegal immigrants staging demonstrations to protest state lawmakers who are working on passing laws that will deny state welfare and social service benefits to illegal immigrants.

Organizers of the demonstrations hope that Americans will view immigration as a civil rights issue, and respond to the marches much like the country did to civil rights marches in 1960s. But, these protest marches have only heightened anxiety among American citizens who don't view immigration as a civil rights issue. Moreover, the massive display of Mexican flags further alienates the American public from the Hispanic, and primarily, the Mexican immigrants' cause, and increases the public pressure on Congress and the Bush Administration to act.

If public opinion is any indication, the programs being pushed by President Bush, and many members of the U.S. Senate, are in direct opposition to what the vast majority of Americans want. Recent polling indicates that almost 60 percent of the American public are opposed to a guest-worker program, and more than that are opposed to making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Likewise, almost 75 percent are concerned that the government is not doing enough to secure our borders.

You would think that the obvious disdain of the U.S. by the protesters, combined with mounting pressure from the public, would motivate Congress to act. And, it has, but not necessarily in the way people want.

The House passed a bill last December, to secure our borders with 700 miles of fence in certain areas, and to force employers to verify the legal status of their employees. The House bill has been at the fore-front of the protests, because it would make it a felony to be in the country illegally. While some aspects of the bill may go too far, the House is at least addressing the foremost issue, and that is securing our borders.

However, on the Senate side, a curious coalition of liberals, conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have joined forces to pass a bill that would give guest-worker status to millions of illegal immigrants already here, and open the borders to an additional 400,000 each year. Since half-a-million illegal immigrants already enter the country each year, it is easy to understand why the public would view this as a policy that will make things much worse, instead of better.

Perhaps, the best approach to this issue is to break it down into two parts - securing our borders, and then, dealing with the illegal immigrants already here. Last year, 1.5 million illegal aliens were caught trying to enter the U.S. at points along our border with Mexico. Among those apprehended were 155,000 aliens from countries other than Mexico, and 649 were from countries with ties to terrorist organizations. With the specter of another terrorist attack in back of many people's minds, it would make good sense politically, and good sense practically, for the House and Senate to take care of border security first.

Once Congress has dealt with border security, they can then take up the more complex issue of what to do about the illegal immigrants already in our work force. By handling this issue in two parts, Congress could separate the issue of national security, and national sovereignty, from the demands of our growing economy for immigrant workers, and the issue of whether or how to assimilate them into our society. This will not make the debates over border security or amnesty for illegal immigrants any less intense, but at least it should result in a more clear-headed approach to both issues.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government, and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

This column is a copyrighted feature distributed free of charge by the Alabama Policy Institute. For imformation or comments contact: Gary Palmer, Alabama Policy Institute, 402 Office Park Drive, Suite 300, Birmingham Alabama 35223, 205-870-9900.

Professor Mike DeBow, of Cumberland School of Law, contributed to this article.