Should aliens have the same rights as U.S. citizens

Alien Rights

Should Aliens Have the Same Rights as U.S. Citizens?

The issue of illegal aliens in the United States has been a topic of much heated debate for several decades. Advocates of illegal alien rights mark several claims, including that illegal immigrants actually contribute to the U.S. economy rather than being a burden upon it. However, critics cite substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are draining the United States of social resources, including depriving the middle-class of employment opportunities.

There are an estimated 12 million illegal aliens living and working in the United States. None of them have any real fear of ever being detained or deported, because it is doubtful anyone is even looking for them (Seper 2004). Explains one veteran Border Patrol supervisor in Arizona, "If they can get by us - and a lot of them do - they know they can go underground, find a job and disappear, particularly in the several cities and towns across the country that have large Hispanic populations" (Seper 2004). In fact, an estimated 1 million illegal aliens flood into the U.S., and few draw attention once they pass through the border region (Seper 2004).

Many believe that illegal aliens pose a significant threat to national security. For example, of the forty-eight al Qaeda terrorists tied to violent acts in the U.S. between 1993 and 2001, roughly half had committed serious immigration law violations prior to the events, yet federal records show that none were never detained, much less deported (Seper 2004). As Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Washington, D.C. based Center for Immigration Studies, points out, "Strict enforcement of immigration law...is one of the most effective means we have of reducing the threat from foreign-born terrorists" (Seper 2004). Retired United States Army Colonel Ben Anderson states that the massive and continuous invasion of foreign nationals into the U.S. through the Southwest border is the direct result of the federal government's failure to deal with border security (Seper 2004).

According to congressional reports and studies by immigration groups and several universities, more than $7 billion is spent each year by United States taxpayers to educate the children of illegal aliens (Seper 2004). Another $1 billion is spent for health care and emergency treatment, and approximately $3 billion to detain illegal aliens in state and local jails (Seper 2004). Moreover, many consider these figures to be conservative, and believe that the dollars spent by U.S. taxpayers on social services for illegal immigrants is much higher. In fact, according to one estimate, taxpayers in the state of California alone spend some $10.5 billion per year for education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens (Uranga 2006).

Many, like Anderson, believe that the political environment in the U.S. is responsible for the illegal immigration problem, noting that the Democrats want cheap votes and the Republicans want cheap labor, both pandering for the Hispanic vote (Seper 2004). Jerry Seper writes in the July 19, 2004 issue of The Washington Times, "thousands of illegals enter the country every day, aided by a growing political movement that has guaranteed them not only a deportation-free environment but voting rights, driver's licenses, social services, housing assistance and in-state college tuition breaks" (Seper 2004).

During recent years, supporters, including some 8,000 immigration lawyers, have been busy trying to win permanent residence for illegal immigrants, their spouses, children and other relatives (Seper 2004). They also represent American businesses who seek to employ foreign workers on both a temporary and permanent basis (Seper 2004). Notes the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, "Future immigrants should also be able to come here legally and safely, have access to permanent residency and not fear criminal prosecution for unlawful entry or exit" (Seper 2004). Moreover, many believe that President Bush's guest-worker and amnesty programs are not sufficient. Several pro-immigration rights groups, including the Service Employees International Union, is focused more on the employers rather than the workers (Seper 2004). The SEIU states, "Without an opportunity to earn full citizenship, 8 million immigrant workers and their families will be at the constant mercy of unscrupulous employers," thus preventing them from "fully participating in our democracy - making immigrants a permanent sub-class of our society" (Seper 2004). The SEIU proposes that illegal alien workers should be allowed to come into the U.S. And become permanent residents, be protected under wage and labor legislation, and that family-reunification provisions be added that provide a path to citizenship for "immigrants here and those to be admitted" (Seper 2004).

Critics note that the amnesty program approved by Congress in 1986, known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act, gave legal status to 2.7 million aliens, and while the program included increased enforcement and penalty policies intended to end illegal immigration, the illegal alien population in the U.S. today is at least double (and some say more than quadruple) the 1986 total (Seper 2004).

Over the last couple of years, there have been several demonstrations for illegal immigrants' rights throughout the United States. Many of these Hispanic immigrants have compared their own struggle with that of the African-Americans' struggle during the Civil Rights Movement (Swarms 2006). Singing "We Shall Overcome," while demanding a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, they believe that this is the emergence of a new civil rights movement (Swarms 2006). Civil rights notables such as Reverend Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond have hailed the recent protests as the natural progression of their own movement in the 1960's. However, not all African-Americans are quite that sympathetic to the illegal alien cause (Swarms 2006). Many African-American professionals, academics and blue-collar workers bristle at the comparison between the civil rights movement and the immigrant demonstrations. They point out that the protesters in the 1960's were United States citizens who had endured centuries of enslavement, rapes, lynchings, and discrimination before they began marching (Swarms 2006). Moreover, they are concerned about the plight of the low-skilled African-American workers, who often compete with immigrants for entry-level jobs (Swarms 2006). Brendon Laster, a fund-raiser at Howard University, believes that immigrant protesters who claim the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. And Rosa Parks are going "too far" (Swarms 2006). Laster is concerned about the impact this emerging immigrant activism might have on African-Americans, many of whom are still facing poverty, high rates of unemployment and discrimination in the workplace (Swarms 2006).

This debate is heating up throughout the United States. Immigrant leaders defend their use of civil rights language, arguing that there are strong parallels between the two struggles, and that their movement will actually become a means to fight for the rights of all American workers, regardless of national origin (Swarms 2006). Jaime Contreras, president of the National Capital Immigration Coalition states, "African-Americans during the civil rights movement were in search of the American dream and that's what our movement is trying to achieve for our community. We face the same issues even if we speak different languages" (Swarms 2006). Jesse Jackson stated, "We too were denied citizenship. We too were undocumented workers, working without wages, without benefits, without the vote" (Swarms 2006). However, W.E.B, DuBois, a founder of the NAACP, and other prominent African-American leaders were concerned that immigrants would displace blacks in the workplace. Notes, Ronald Walters, director of the African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland, noted that African-American cheered when the federal government restricted Asian immigration to the U.S. following World War I (Swarms 2006). Although African-Americans and Hispanics have also been allies through the years, according to a recent poll conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, nearly twice as many blacks as whites reported that they or a family member had lost a job, or not gotten a job, because an employer hired an immigrant; blacks were also more likely than whites to feel that immigrants had taken jobs away from U.S. citizens (Swarms 2006).

Lawfully admitted United States resident aliens and U.S. citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law of the state where they reside (Pinney 2004). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted "to eliminate...discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, or national origin" (Pinney 2004). However, at the time Congress passed this law, the issue of illegal immigration was not a concern, and was, for all intent and purpose, aimed at legal citizens and residents, not illegal aliens who slip by border patrols on the Mexico-U.S. borders (Pinney 2004).

George J. Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at Harvard and an expert on illegal immigration, does not support Bush's guest-worker proposal, however he does note that something must be done since mass deportation is unlikely (Murphy 2004). The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2001 there were 5.3 million unauthorized workers in the United States, including 700,000 restaurant workers, 250,000 household employees, and 620,000 construction workers (Murphy 2004). Moreover, according to a study by Philip L. Martin, professor at the University of California at Davis who studies immigration and farm labor, roughly 1.2 million of the 2.5 million wage-earning farm-workers live here illegally (Murphy 2004). That accounts for a lot of cheap labor, and many claim that without it fruit and vegetables would rot in the fields, toddlers would be without nannies, linens at hotels would go unlaundered, commuters would be stranded as taxis sat driverless, and construction would come to a halt (Murphy 2004). However, Borjas claims that this ripple effect would not last long, noting that in states such as Iowa, where foreign-born residents are rare, there are people working in hotels, restaurants, and all the other jobs that supporters claim can only be filled with illegal aliens (Murphy 2004). In fact, according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 87% of illegal immigrant live in just 15 states (Murphy 2004). Borjas points out that if there were no illegal aliens to tend the gardens, Californians who wanted nice lawns would simply pay more for it, eventually drawing low skilled workers from other parts of the country. Adding that American workers would be the better for it, Borjas states, "the workers would be slightly wealthier, and the employers would be slightly poorer, but everything would get done" (Murphy 2004).

Laura Hill, a research fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California agrees, stating that although there would be a spike in fruits and vegetables, eventually farmers and agricultural companies would find cheaper ways to harvest the crops, perhaps even turning the quest into the development of new technology (Murphy 2004).

Many immigration experts, such as Mark Krikorian, executive director of Center for Immigration Studies, suggest that American taxpayers would be better off financially if the illegal immigrants in the United States returned to their homeland, arguing that there would be far less stress on the social-welfare system (Murphy 2004). According to Krikorian, "Immigrants overall use at least one major welfare program at a rate 50% higher than natives" (Murphy 2004). Referring to an analysis of 2001 data by his center that found Medicaid use particularly high among immigrants, Krikorian claims, "That is not because they are morally defective. It is because they are poor and don't have any education, and they end up inevitably stumbling and having needs for the system" (Murphy 2004).

However immigrant advocacy groups disagree, claiming that the economic impact of immigration plays out differently at the local and national levels (Murphy 2004). Although local hospitals and clinics bear huge health-care costs associated with uninsured illegal immigrants, the federal government enjoys a 'bonanza' from many of the same immigrants who pay federal taxes but receive no benefits in return (Murphy 2004). Raul Yzaguirre, president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights organization, notes that contrary to popular perception, many illegal aliens do have payroll taxes deducted from their paychecks (Murphy 2004). Yet, many undocumented workers use false Social Security numbers. Nevertheless, Yzaguirre claims that without illegal immigrants, all Americans would be punished by having to pay more for everything, from hamburgers to new housing (Murphy 2004).

While many believe that illegal alien have not right to health benefits because those who are here illegally have no right to benefits in the United States, others argue that access to health care is a basic human right and should be provided to everyone, including illegal immigrants (Dwyer 2004). While it is true that illegal aliens have violated a law by entering and remaining in the Untied States, many people break many different laws and still are entitled to health care (Dwyer 2004). Proponents of California's Proposition 187 stated that "while our own citizens and legal residents go wanting, those who chose to enter our country ILLEGALLY get royal treatment at the expense of the California taxpayer" (Dwyer 2004). Proponents also noted that the legislature maintained programs that included free prenatal care for illegal aliens while at the same time increased the amount that senior citizens had to pay for prescription drugs (Dwyer 2004).

While the United States is a country of many prospects and possibilities, there must be rules to ensure order and prosperity (Porter 2006). In 1952, the federal government established the Immigration and Nationality Act, which serves as the basic framework for U.S. immigration law. At the time of its adoption it was favored by both sides of the political fence. The Democrats supported it because it made all races eligible for naturalization, and eliminated discrimination between sexes with respect to immigration (Porter 2006). Republicans supported it because it revised the quota system of the National Origins Act of 1924 and introduced a means of selected immigration by giving a quota preference to skilled aliens whose services were needed in the U.S. (Porter 2006). Lakeisha Porter points out in the March 2006 issue of International Social Science Review, that it also outlined procedures for "adjusting the status of nonimmigrant aliens to permanent resident aliens, added significantly to the existing classes of nonimmigrant admission, and established a central index of all aliens in the United States for use by security and law enforcement agencies" (Porter 2006).