Bluntly said,
people who are illegally in this country possess only those civil
rights that we grant to them.
Yes, they
have human rights, such as the familiar life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. But civil rights, by most definitions, are
protections and privileges of freedom given by nation's laws to
its citizens.
This, of
course, flies in the face of the contemporary confusion about
"immigrants' rights," which proclaims that anyone who
lands on U.S. soil, by whatever means, has the same civil right
to obtain a driver's license, get a subsidized mortgage or any
of the other benefits that are typically granted by law to citizens.
An illegal
immigrant can claim the protections of human rights, which cannot
be voided by any governmental action. But--and this will startle
and anger some--an "undocumented" immigrant has no claim
to equal treatment.
This may
sound like a lot of philosophical gibberish, but it has some very
real implications. For example, the teen who was in America illegally
and who was denied admission to an Elmwood Park school has a human
right to an education. But whether she has a civil right to attend
that school, using our public money, at this time, should be a
matter for the citizens of the United States and Elmwood Park
to decide. Same goes for issuing driver's licenses or providing
mortgage assistance.
I might sound
like a squirrelly policy wonk for saying it, but if the citizens
of the United States don't get to decide who qualifies for citizenship
and who benefits from government programs, then citizenship is
made meaningless by denying them control over their laws and their
spending. So, Americans are properly offended by the bald-faced
attempt by Mexico President Vicente Fox and 10 other Latin American
leaders to prescribe their solution to the vast problems caused
by the illegal presence of 11 million people in our country and
a non-functional border.
While we're
trying to set some ground rules in this difficult debate, it would
help to clarify some language. A foreigner (yes, that's the proper
name for someone here from another country) who can't produce
his documents to demonstrate his legal status in the United States
is different from a foreigner who has no documents because he
is here illegally. Thus, "undocumented immigrant" is
an imprecise substitute for "illegal immigrant."
It is yet
another loss for proper usage in the never-ending skirmish over
political correctness. And while the use of "illegal immigrant"
may cause offense, it hardly rises to the offensive heights caused
by labeling one side of a legitimate debate "nativists"
or "xenophobes."
Also, as
we enter this debate, it's wise to bring up what we've learned
from the past, since we've been around this corner before. In
1986, we conducted this same debate and the "solution"
then was to grant amnesty to about 2.7 million illegal immigrants.
Then, amnesty advocates said we need grant it "just this
once," and that better enforcement--mostly going after employers
who hire illegal immigrants--would solve the problem. That amnesty
didn't stop the illegal flow across our border, and enforcement--especially
by the Bush administration--has been a joke.
Last year,
86 members of Congress felt compelled to urge President Bush to
enforce three dozen immigration laws that they said the administration
had ignored.
Amnesty wasn't
part of a border-security bill the House passed last year. But
the Senate won't escape a debate over amnesty, especially with
President Bush pushing for a "guest worker" program.
At least four bills are up for Senate consideration, but as far
as I can tell, none of them would immediately round up 11 million
people and ship them "back." Nonetheless, some believe
any solution is so intractable that we might as well live with
an open border.
To the contrary,
we can solve this problem, humanely and effectively. Strengthen
our border. Enforce the laws on the books. Restore respect for
the rule of law. Agree that the fight isn't over immigration,
but illegal immigration. And, most important, agree that Americans
have a right to define and defend what it means to be an American.
