In a simple world, the
line between right and wrong is as clear as the difference between black and
white But, the world is not so simple
and necessity forges some uncomfortable moral compromises.
There are powerful economic
and safety reasons to follow the speed limit, for instance — but that doesn’t
mean people do it. Congressmen are elected on no-tax, no-spend platforms, only
to find their local constituency’s needs
justify a few pure-pork line items; and various affirmative action schemes
attempt to counteract discrimination by discriminating. All are compromises of
some basic principle, rationalized for the sake of the greater good.
Such a compromise was
the California Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, which
would have permitted undocumented students to apply for noncompetitive
financial aid. But even if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had not vetoed SB 1, such
a compromise might have proved to be one too many.
The D.R.E.A.M. Act was
essentially a sister bill to 2001’s AB 540, which allowed undocumented
residents to pay in-state tuition for higher education (if they meet certain
requirements). That bill carefully skirts a 1996 federal law that prohibits
offering higher education benefits to undocumented residents, on the basis of residence, unless those
same benefits are available to legal residents. Because AB 540 requires only attendance at a state school, rather
than residency in California, the bill deftly sidesteps the restriction.
By mimicking that
strategy, this year’s rewrite of the D.R.E.A.M. Act allows undocumented
immigrants to apply for noncompetitive
higher education benefits. In so doing, it avoids federal restrictions that
prevent undocumented residents from competing with legal residents for higher
education funds.
Despite the technical
legality of both AB 540 and SB 1, the net effect of the bills is undeniable:
They give funds to illegal residents that might otherwise be available to legal
residents. The argument that the state has already set aside funds, as advanced
in an Oct. 10 Los Angeles Times editorial,
is a polite way of dodging this fact.
Why should illegal
immigrants be given the same benefits as legal immigrants? Why should
non-taxpayers be given the same benefits as taxpayers? It’s difficult to argue
against such positions.
Instructively, similar
arguments have been lobbed by the top tax bracket against the lower echelons.
The top 5 percent of taxpayers pay the lion’s share of the federal budget, yet
they have proportionally little sway over how that money is spent. Why should
top-tier taxpayers be forced to support the wants of those who hardly pay taxes
at all? Applied to taxes, this argument falls on deaf ears for one simple
reason: It’s hard to feel too bad for someone who makes over $174,000 a year,
no matter what percentage of the national revenue pool they may finance.
And this is precisely
why that same argument falls on deaf ears when applied to immigration. The
stark visual contrast between the suburbs of California (median annual wage:
$34,000) and waterless shantytowns clinging to Tijuana’s hillsides (median
annual wage: $10,000) takes the wind out of any abstract argument about
“fairness.” It would never sit well that a person born in San Ysidro should be
afforded all the benefits conferred by American citizenship, while someone born
just down the street should be denied those opportunities.
With a federal quota
that limits the number of visas issued each year, visa applications from Mexico
are backlogged anywhere from two to 20 years, depending on the applicant’s
family status. No one with a heart can blame would-be immigrants from
circumventing that hurdle, and no one with a brain can argue that they wouldn’t
try the same were the situation reversed.
But in this case, empathy
can lead us astray. One cannot appeal to the notion that we are all the same
while simultaneously requesting special treatment. Supporters of the D.R.E.A.M.
Act and similar legislation are compromising their long-term beliefs — equal
opportunity for all people — for the sake of short-term benefits, in this case
allowing a small number of people to apply for limited financial aid.
While the D.R.E.A.M.
Act might have proved a godsend to the 700 or so UC students that would have
benefited from it, establishing assistance programs for those who have crossed
the border illegally — and who do not pay income taxes — creates a festering
resentment among those who came here legally and do pay income taxes.
That resentment
creates an “us-versus-them” mentality, already exacerbated by differences in
language and culture and which can be seen in the reactions of nativist
Americans and the counterreactions of pro-immigrant groups. (Browse the forums
of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, for instance, or hunt out some
non-moderated forums for real eye-openers.) Once established, these divisions
are almost intractable.
As long as the gulf in
economic opportunity exists between Mexico and the United States, there will be
immigration; and as long as visa quotas exist, there will be illegal
immigration. No amount of concrete,
barbed wire, or Immigration and Naturalization Service agents will change this.
Any meaningful
immigration reform must tackle one or both of these issues, and be addressed on
the national stage. But by expending political capital in sympathetic border
states like California, pro-immigration groups may find themselves losing
larger battles over the forces that shape immigration.
Want to expand the
number of visas that can be issued in a year, a move that would instantly
improve the lives of thousands of would-be migrants, and simultaneously
encourage law-abiding immigration? Good luck getting that past a nation that is
already embittered about financing the medical and primary education bills of illegal
immigrants.
Perhaps the $1.2
billion plunked down (so far) for the expanded border fence might be more
productively spent as an investment in Mexico’s economy, reducing the drive to
immigrate in the first place? Again, fat chance. Attacking the fence plan last
Monday, Mexican president Felipe Calderon argued that the United States and
Mexico should be “building bridges, not fences.”
Creating an
institutional double-standard between legal citizens and undocumented residents
is no way to do that. Rather than continue to press for ultimately minor
victories like the D.R.E.A.M. Act, these immigrants should gird themselves for
the national battles that will be more difficult — but ultimately more fruitful
for everyone involved.
