_feeding_the_friendly_sheep.jpg)
L.A. Chung, Mercury News:
Bill says (in an email to Ms. Chung):
Perhaps illegal aliens is a poor choice of words to describe this group of people. I don’t personally see it as racist though since for me the national origin is irrelevant and I feel the same way whether the individual is from Mexico, China or the Ukraine.
On the other hand, your newspaper has often used the phrase undocumented immigrants. That’s no better since it ignores the illegal nature of the behavior.
To use a more accurate name, how about we just call them criminals? When necessary to refer to them as a group the Mercury News can use the phrase foreign national criminals? Sure that removes any racist taint from the nomenclature. People who violate the law are criminals, people in the US who are citizens of another country are foreign nationals.
Considering the bigger picture, let me run a short story by you:
Paul is born in an American city, his parents don’t have much money and one day when he’s five his father is gone. Paul’s mom acts like he disappeared, there’s no funeral, she just says “dad’s gone” with no explanation. Mom doesn’t work much, doesn’t take much care of Paul though she tries, and as he grows up he sees other kids with sneakers and TVs and other stuff he can’t have.
When he’s 13 he goes to work for a small businessman in the neighborhood. Just trying to get some cash for a warm coat for the winter and a decent stereo. A few years go by, he drops out of school at 16 to work full time and gets himself a used car. He starts dating a pretty girl, the job gets him money to take her out and buy her birthday and valentine’s presents.
After so many years working for the same business Paul’s been given better jobs, more responsibility. He and his girl get married, they talk about leaving the neighborhood but he says no, he doesn’t want to leave his job because not having finished school the idea scares him. Plus, where would he get work that pays as well or is as secure?
She gets pregnant and they have a son, Paul’s really proud and determined that his boy will have a father to love him and show him the things his own never did. He’s working hard at the only thing he knows to put food on the table and a roof over his family’s head.
So L.A., who is Paul? The obvious answer is a drug dealer though he could be working at the corner shop but I’m not trying to trick you; this Paul is a criminal, making his living by breaking the law. If foreign national criminals should be given amnesty and the ability to work legally in the US because they’re only trying to escape poverty and the circumstances of their birth why shouldn’t we legalize drugs so Paul and his colleagues can do the same? Why not legalize prostitution, gambling or a number of other activities which people do to make a living?
More fundamentally, I object to the current and proposed manner in which our country deals with this situation because we are a nation of laws. I certainly agree with those who point to the employers and demand the government charge them for their crimes as well. And pragmatically, deporting 12 million (and almost certainly more) people is nearly impossible but hey, we’ve been fighting the war on drugs for 35 years now and the lack of success has hardly stopped us from filling up prisons and building more.
Legal residents of America can fight to change the laws, perhaps starting by changing people’s perception of the problem. Maybe the planned May 1 boycott will show me and others who share my opinion the reality that this fight is already lost. But for now, I don’t see why these people should not be treated the same as anyone else who breaks our laws, whatever name we use for them as a group.
Regards,
Bill Lazar