Terra Extraneus

1975. Morelos, Zacatecas. Miguel and Maria and their 2-year-old, Angelina, live in Morelos, a village in Zacatecas, Mexico. Famous for its silver mines, Zacatecas was once one of the richest states of Mexico, but today more than half the population lives in poverty. Many jobs have moved from Mexico to China in recent years, and there are few opportunities in Zacatecas for young people like Miguel and Maria.

The young family has finally decided to follow in the steps of many Zacatecans. Moving to the United States will mean leaving relatives and their hometown behind, risking their lives to make the border crossing, and struggling to survive as illegal immigrants in the U.S. But there are no jobs in Morelos, and they have a daughter to provide for. Miguel and Maria’s dream is for Angelina to grow up with a better life than the one they have known.

1990. McAllen, Texas. Maria and 17-year-old Angelina have lived in Hidalgo County for 15 years. Miguel was killed in a farming accident 10 years ago. Maria works full-time as a waitress to provide for Angelina and two younger daughters. They don’t have much, but the life they have is better in many ways than what Maria knew growing up in Morelos.

Angelina may have been born in Mexico, but she has no memory of that place. She learned Spanish from her parents and still speaks it with her mom, but as a first-grader in McAllen public school, Angelina was a quick learner. Soon she was speaking English fluently. Among the first English words Angelina ever learned were the words of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Angelina knows that some people consider her an “illegal,” but her face turns red and her throat tightens when someone calls her a “Mexican.” The United States is the only home she has ever known.

This is a big year for Angelina. Last month she graduated from high school. Next month she is getting married. She is engaged to Ricardo, a member of the youth group of Iglesia Bautista, the bilingual Baptist church she has attended since a neighbor first invited her to Sunday School when she was 9. Ricardo works construction and Angelina works as a checker at the H-E-B grocery. Angelina plans to take classes two nights a week at the community college. Soon she will be married and start a family, and her dream is to give her children a better life than the one she has known.

2006. Dallas, Texas. Emma came along 11 months after Ricardo and Angelina were married. Fifteen years later, Emma is a freshman at a Dallas high school. Emma divides her time between girls basketball, digital photography, and instant messaging. Her favorite TV show is “American Idol,” although she can’t believe Taylor Hicks won. She loves Shakira, especially now that she’s finally recorded an album in English.

Like almost every Texan, Emma knows a little Spanish, including a few phrases she has picked up from her parents. But English is the only language Emma really knows. Her parents were born in Mexico, but neither of them have been back since they were toddlers. Emma has never been there.

Like most American teenagers, Emma has way too many other things to think about to be concerned with the country of her grandparents. She’s a good student, and she has a secret dream, one she hasn’t even told her mom. Emma hopes to be the first person in her family to earn a college degree.

2005. Washington, D.C. Five times in the past 11 years (1995, 1997, 1999, 2003, and 2005), a minority of far-right lawmakers have introduced the Citizenship Reform Act, which would do away with “birthright citizenship.” The doctrine of birthright citizenship guarantees citizenship to all children born in the U.S., except the children of diplomats. It is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1868 to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War. Of course, the Constitution trumps any law passed by Congress. However, proponents claim that if the law were passed and brought to the Supreme Court, it might somehow pass the test of constitutionality.

Shockingly, according to one recent poll, 49% of American citizens say they agree with doing away with birthright citizenship. I have got to believe that many of those citizens have just not thought the issue through. If there are many citizens who really do understand the ramifications of this proposal – the tragic consequences it would have for children like Emma, children born and raised in our country who know no other home but America – it would break my heart.

It is one thing to debate whether Miguel and Maria were right or wrong to cross the border in the first place, and what we should do to secure our borders. But it is a much different question to propose that the solution is to deprive citizenship of children who become Americans exactly the same way almost all of the rest of us did – they were born and raised here.

There are valid points to weigh on both sides of the immigration debate. But when it comes to the children, there is nothing to debate. If we turn our backs on our children, children like Emma and millions of others whose only home has ever been the United States of America, then we cease to be the country to which Angelina and Emma have frequently pledged their allegiance. Remember that country — one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all? That should not be up for debate.

3 Comments

In my article, “Let’s Make English Official Language, No Matter What French-Lovers Say,” I responded to Rep. Ernest Istook’s proposal to declare English our official language. Istook, Oklahoma’s 5th District congressman, is a Republican candidate for governor this year. In response to that article, Stephen Heggy has commented:

This sounds like more of a vote-getting ploy to cater to the rural groups in Oklahoma. Istook has to fight the pro-Democrat farmers and this is one way to do it (sadly).

Mr. Heggy is a freshman political science major at Oklahoma State University. He also happens to be the son of one of the authors of this blog.

Stephen, I’m not sure you are right that Istook’s nativistic attitude plays better in rural Oklahoma than in the suburbs (like the OKC suburb of Warr Acres, where Istook lives). Here in the Southwest, rural citizens are becoming increasingly accustomed to living and working alongside Hispanic immigrants (whether legal or otherwise) from Mexico and other Latin American countries. I think perhaps it is in the suburbs where you are more likely to find those people who so dearly cherish sameness. Same houses, same cars, skin the same pale shade of brown, and the peculiar longing for just one language.

In rural Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and the states west of here, immigrants have become a vital part of the economy, especially in such sectors as farming and meat-processing. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group, has prepared an excellent 44-page report, Unauthorized Migrants. According to that report:

• About 65% of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are employed. That includes all unauthorized migrants: men, women, children and senior citizens. About 92% of the adult male illegal immigrants are employed.
• How are they employed? 33% in the service industry (e.g., hotels, domestics, food service); 17% in construction and extraction; 16% in production, installation and repair; 3% farming.

More importantly, looking at it from the perspective of the rural economy:
• Unauthorized migrants comprise 23% of all workers employed in U.S. farming occupations.
• They comprise 12% of all workers in meat-packing and meat-processing occupations.

On Monday, millions of citizens and immigrants participated in rallies across the country objecting to the draconian immigration measures desired by those on the far right. Rallies took place in such places as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and Garden City, Kansas.

Garden City, Kansas? That’s right, demonstrations were staged in several Kansas cities, including 3,000 protestors in Garden City, a city of 30,000 in Southwest Kansas that is nearly 50% Hispanic. Garden City is the site of a huge Tyson meat-packing plant as well as other food manufacturers.

This blog comment by a Kansas resident is instructive:

They [Garden City] are about 20 years ahead of many other meat packing cities out there. My own hometown, Great Bend, continues to have a dwindling population. Vrtually the only newcomers are Hispanic, and let me tell you, they were NOT greeted with open arms when I was in high school 15 years ago. It was embarrassing and shameful. I’m pleased to say that slow but steady changes in attitude have occurred, now that people in the town recognize that most of the new businesses and homeowners are Hispanics. My own xenophobic parents have started praising the “hard working attitude” of these folks, and rave about their cooking. My linguistically challenged mother started taking conversational Spanish classes.

My impression of Garden City is that they recognized this earlier than most small western Kansas meatpacking towns, and offered incentives for migrants to become locals, including things like assisting them in obtaining loans to start businesses and own homes. The migrant-turned-community member is who will make or break these small, dying towns. Embrace the influx of migrants and turn them into townies, or turn the cold shoulder, and watch your town continue to wither and die.

But the Stepfordites are so enamored of pale skin and the Queen’s English that they are willing to cut off their own upturned noses to spite their faces. They have not given much thought to what would happen to our economy if we somehow deported all 12 million illegal immigrants overnight. Conservative columnist George Will calculates that it would take 200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from San Diego to Alaska to deport all illegals. Besides, Will observes, “There are no plausible incentives to get [them] to board the buses.” In “Guard the Borders - And Face Facts, Too,” Will writes:

Conservatives should want, as the president proposes, a guest worker program to supply what the U.S. economy demands — immigrant labor for entry-level jobs. Conservatives should favor a policy of encouraging unlimited immigration by educated people with math, engineering, technology or science skills that America’s education system is not sufficiently supplying. And conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society’s crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status “amnesty.”

But I doubt that most white suburbanites care much more about the fate of rural America than they care about the needs of foreign-born workers. So let me talk about something middle-class and upperclass suburb-dwellers care about: cost of living. According to the aforementioned Pew report, from 20% to 30% of many construction-related skills are provided in the U.S. by unauthorized migrants. We’re talking about painters, roofers, dry-wallers, tile-layers, cement and brick masons and the like. So, before you pack up all of those illegals and send them back home, you better make sure you have all of your home remodeling and repair projects done. And if you’re planning on trading up to a nicer home, you better do it now. Because once you remove all the illegal aliens, the cost of construction, maintenance and repair in the suburbs is going to go sky high. Now are we talking about something you care about?

No Comments

Good piece by columnist Maggie Galagher on the immigration/border debate. An excerpt:

“Don’t call me anti-immigration. Count me among the 17 percent of Americans in the new Pew poll who say they’d support raising the legal immigration quotas. I’m also vigorously opposed to any law that criminalizes charity for people who need food, clothing or medical care. But I do want one thing from Congress: Come up with a plan to secure our borders. What about the 12 million people already here? As far as I can tell, they are not a crisis. Certainly the pro-immigration lobby says these people are good for the economy, so why the urgency about documenting them?”

Galagher cites poll numbers which show the American people are conflicted on this hot issue. See the whole piece: “Politicians Ought to Start at the Border to Fix Immigration.”

No Comments

I have a simple question for those on the far right who not only want beefed up border security, but also are vehemently opposed to any kind of guest worker program or other proposal that would allow the millions of illegal immigrants who are already living peacefully and productively in the U.S. to achieve legal status. My question: What are you afraid of?

Is it human beings you dislike? Do you look upon each additional person who enters our country as a burden? Is each additional human just another problem to deal with? Do you live by a “scarce resources mentality?” The fewer human beings the better? The fewer people, the bigger your piece of pie? By the same reasoning, do you support abortion and euthanasia?

Or is it that the majority of illegal immigrants to the U.S. are from Mexico and other Latin American countries? Is it Hispanics/Latinos that you dislike? If so, what is it about Latin Americans that you dislike so much? Is it the color of their skin? Is it their language? Is it the music they listen to?

Is it that most Latin Americans are full or part Native American? Is it actually Native Americans you dislike?

Or is your issue that the vast majority of illegal immigrants lived in desperate poverty in their native country, and they came to the U.S. looking for work to support their families? Is it the fact that they are so poor that makes them so distasteful to you? Do you consider poor people an irritation, an eyesore, a burden, a threat? Are we back to dividing up that pie? Are you worried you won’t get a big enough piece?

Which is it? That they are poor? Or Native American? Or Hispanic? Or brown-skinned? Or do you just hate all humans? I would love to hear an explanation.

3 Comments

Novelist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez is rightfully angry about common ignorance and sloppy media coverage of Hispanic Americans and “the immigration problem.” She makes 16 cogent points on the topic. Here are some excerpts (paraphrased); a link to the entire post is below.

• The vast majority (75%) of U.S. Hispanics were born and raised here, including many who have roots that predate the pilgrims.

• You can be a Mexican American and never have had an ancestor cross the U.S. border, because a huge part of the U.S. used to be Mexico.

• English only? Then you may no longer say the names of most U.S. states. Only seven states have English names; the rest are Spanish or Native American. Spanish names which would be excluded by “English only” include California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida, as well as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas, and thousands of other U.S. cities.

• The majority of Hispanics in the U.S. speak English as a first language. The Pew Center for Hispanic Research found that by the third generation, all Latin American immigrant descendents — 100% — speak English as their primary language.

• The U.S. has two international borders, not one. To date, not a single terrorist has come to the U.S. through Mexico. At least two suspected terrorists have arrived here through Canada.

• The only people who can claim to be true “Americans” are Native Americans.

• Most Mexicans are Native Americans. [My note: 80% of Mexicans are all or part Amerindian (native American)].

• Check for plans to give Halliburton the contract to build the proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

See Valdes-Rodriguez’ post: “How Stupid Are the U.S. Media?”

* * * * * *
Hat Tip to Independent Christian Voice for the Valdes-Rodriguez’ link. Read ICV’s article, “Immigration Issue Is One of the Most Complex.”

1 Comment

On Terra Extraneus’ Open Mic page, Stephen Heggy, a student at Oklahoma State University, has written:

Hey, did you guys hear about Cardinal Mahony in California that told his congregation that he did not approve of the new immigration law about to be passed and would advise his priests and deacons not to abide by it. He also said that immigration was not a national security issue. (The O’Reilly Factor quoted him as saying that terrorists would not trek through the desert to enter the country, but I couldn’t find any other source that repeated that.) What do you think of that?

Thanks for your question, Stephen.

Cardinal Roger Mahony is the Archbishop of Los Angeles and one of the 179 cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church. He oversees a “parish” of more than 4 million Catholics. In other words, he is a very influential individual. He is recognized as one of the most politically liberal Catholic leaders in the U.S. He has been an outspoken advocate on behalf of legal and illegal immigrants.

Cardinal Mahony has voiced his strong objection to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (HR 4437), which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec. 16, 2005. As you say, Stephen, the proposed legislation has not become law. After House passage it was referred to the Senate, where the bill could die or could go through major change before becoming law.

Among its numerous provisions, HR 4437 would make it a crime punishable by up to 5 years in prison for an individual to provide assistance to an illegal alien. What Mahony fears is that the bill would make it a crime for churches and other helping agencies to help people in need. After all, Jesus specifically commanded us to provide loving aid to strangers (Matthew 25:37-40), and he didn’t tell us to check their papers first.

However, a spokesman for Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), the lawmaker who authored the bill, said Mahony and others who object to the bill are guilty of “hysteria.” Jeff Lungren said HR 4437 doesn’t target churches or helping agencies, but targets border smugglers. Lundgren told the Washington Post:

Everyone seems to understand the intent. It is intended to go after smugglers…[Addressing church leaders who oppose the bill, Lungren said,] You say we’re going after you? Well, are people coming after you right now, because that’s the current law?

Well, let’s just take a look at the current law, and how HR 4437 would change the law. The current law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, says (in Sec. 274) that a person commits a felony if he:

encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States.

Sensenbrenner’s bill (Sec. 202, HR 4437) would change the wording of that paragraph so that a person commits a felony if he:

assists, encourages, directs, or induces [an illegal alien] to reside in or remain in the United States.

So, Lungren isn’t exactly right when he says the new bill is the same as the current law. The current law forbids “encouraging” or “inducing” the residency of illegal aliens, but the new bill would go beyond that to forbid “assisting” such aliens. I share the cardinal’s concern that the new language might prompt an over-eager law enforcement officer or prosecutor to attempt to punish a priest, minister, doctor, nurse, or social worker for offering medical treatment, a meal, or a cold glass of water to an illegal alien.

I have no objection to punishing those who are actively promoting illegal immigration, but I would certainly object to any attempt to prevent Christians from simply providing assistance to a fellow human being, regardless of their residency status. If it is true that the House bill does not intend to stop an individual from doing simple acts of kindness for a neighbor in the name of Christ, then the language should be clarified before it becomes law. Despite Lungren’s cheap shot about the cardinal’s “hysteria,” Cardinal Mahony was right to sound the alarm about this bill now, before it becomes law.

If the government were ever to attempt to use any immigration law to force churches to check people’s papers before providing assistance, such as food, clothing, or temporary shelter, then I’m with Cardinal Mahony. When a person turns to me in my capacity as the minister of a church for help, I will continue to provide whatever help I believe is appropriate, according to my understanding of the Scriptures, in the name of the Lord. I support the work of the Immigration Service and the Border Patrol, but I will not attempt to do their work when someone turns to me as a minister of Christ.

I applaud Cardinal Mahony for bringing this issue to national attention while there is still time to tidy up the language of the immigration bill. But I’m not worried about it. If the government were ever to attempt to prevent a church from carrying out its God-given mission, I am confident that the courts would remind the government of the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion.

This is an issue of religious freedom, and so far, this is still a free country.

* * * * * *
Here are two news stories about the immigration bill:
> Bill on Illegal-Immigrant Aid Draws Fire (New York Times, 12/30/05)
> L.A. Cardinal Plans to Defy Illegals Law (Washington Times, 03/02/06)

No Comments