Isn't Illegal Immigration Just a Legal Issue?

As an Hispanic child growing up in Northern Newpeople from their natural and historical migrations and
Mexico in the 1940s I recall being surprised one day ontravels.
hearing my Aunt Josefina say to my grandparentsAfter the U.S. invasion and conquering of Texas and
that, contrary to what they thought, we werethe southwest, Spanish-speaking people in those areas
"Americanos" too, just like the 'gringos' (Anglos,(Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, California, etc.)
Germans) and 'gabachos' (Frenchmen) in and aroundconsisted of long-time natives (like my grandparents)
our little village. "¡También somoswhose families can be traced back to the 1700s and
Americanos!" (We're also Americans!), I shouted mylater immigrants to the area, who attained legal
brother. My brother and I thought it was funny; for weresidency and eventually were naturalized as citizens;
had believed all along that the "Americanos" wereand finally the later immigrants who migrated to the
those big, well-to-do white people who spoke aU.S. without the legal documentation. Many of these
strange language; but now we were those guys too.assimilated to the North American culture, adopted
What a revelation! Now, why would identification asEnglish as their primary language (in some cases, as
American sound surprising to people who had lived fortheir only language) and became full-fledged U.S.
multiple generations in that part of the country?citizens. Others retained many aspects of their
I thought about this as the news about Arizona's toughHispanic culture (in California and New Mexico, for
immigration law was breaking, inspiring action andexample) or Mexican culture, speaking Spanish as their
reaction around the country. New Mexico is notprimary language. The attitudes toward illegal
Arizona, but a next-door neighbor with a differentimmigration and undocumented immigrants coming
history; but coincidentally, Arizona, like New Mexico,across the border with Mexico of these people vary,
was not admitted into the union until 1912.with some agreeing with the establishment classes
I do not have a solution for our difficult illegalthat tougher enforcement of immigration laws are
immigration problem, and I seriously doubt that anyoneneeded, especially when the criminal problem of drug
else has the answer. A complete sealing of the bordersmuggling is considered. But among these people (as
is not a practical possibility, and draconian laws againstamong other groups) there are those who tend to
anyone likely to be undocumented (like Arizona hashave more feeling for the human element of the
proposed) will also likely fail and produce unacceptableproblem. This is more noticeably the case among
consequences. Immigration is a problem for the federalthose who have been recent immigrants themselves
government; eventually Congress will get around toor have closely associated with the struggles of the
passing legislation which hopefully will at least be apoverty-stricken immigrating from south of the border.
partial solution to the problem, maybe something similarWhen we take into consideration the human element,
to legislation of the 1980s which granted a path to legalwe're likely to emphasize that undocumented
residency and eventually allowed naturalization toimmigrants are mostly just human beings trying to
millions of undocumented people already in the country.improve their lives and that of their families, humans
But the problem of mass migration of people, with orwho have reluctantly left their homes, families, and
without proper documentation, is an historical problemfriends to migrate to a different part of the world
and a worldwide problem. Surely it is not one special to(which may not welcome them) in order to survive and
the United States. Consider the immigration problemshopefully flourish, something that all humans desire.
that Western European countries also face. As longWhen we take the human element into consideration
as certain regions are poverty-stricken and offer fewwe're likely to emphasize the difference between
prospects for a decent standard of life and otherhonest, hard-working people just looking for better
regions offer better opportunities for desperate people,prospects in life and the criminals who exploit and prey
there will be migrations of peoples.on the weak in all societies, including the societies of
But let me return briefly to my family's situation in Newimmigrants themselves. When we take the human
Mexico in the first half of the twentieth century. Whyelement into account we're likely to oppose draconian
would my grandparents, my brother and I be surprisedlaws which turn all poor, unfortunate, undocumented
to hear that we were Americans too? After all, weindividuals into criminals to be treated the same as the
were not new comers to New Mexico, far from it asdrug smugglers, violent felons, and cheaters among the
our family lines went back to the time of Oñate'simmigrant population.
original entry into the region back in 1598. My guess isWhen we take into account the human element we're
that part of the answer is historical and part is linguistic.likely to focus on questions of moral justice and dignity
My grandparents were born in the territory of Newof the individual, and not just the question of violation of
Mexico before it officially became a state (47th in theimmigration law. Recognition of the narrow legality
union ) in 1912. Citizenship supposedly came for theinvolved and the need for nations to enforce their
residents with statehood. But my grandparents wereimmigration laws does not tell us anything about
descendants of people who had lived in the area forbroader questions of universal justice and morality. For
several centuries and who had been vanquished bysomeone conscientious about the philosophical and
the invading U.S. Army in 1846. For these people themoral questions, what justification is there for policies
"Americanos" were the invaders and the foreigners. Itthat give preferential treatment to some segments of
took a major change in perspective to seehumanity and exclude others from the comfort and
themselves as "Americanos." Furthermore, myrewards of a more organized, prosperous society?
grandparents' people spoke Spanish; the AmericanosWe are likely to say to the law-and-order person: "All
spoke English. Even the name "Americano" was notright, so you're straight about the legality of the
typically understood as designating a citizen of theproblem, but what about the morality? In other words,
United States, but more as designating those outsidersthe problem of illegal immigration is not simply one
who conquered us and took over. My grandfatherabout 'justice' in a legal sense, but 'justice' in a moral
participated in his community as a Justice of thesense. Draconian laws like those instituted in Arizona
Peace and voted in U.S. elections; but he did not seedon't help at all in this matter.
himself as an "Americano." Our family, except for aOur law-and-order citizens may insist that the only
younger son who joined the military, spoke Spanishrelevant question concerns the fact that so many
primarily and exclusively. We were dark skinned, poorimmigrants are "illegales" (i.e., persons do not have
working class, Spanish-speaking people. We wouldproper documentation for legal entry). So the only
have been primary targets or for Arizona-Maricoparelevant issue concerns legality, not morality? "What
County Sheriff Arpaio's deputies, out searching forpart of 'illegal' don't you understand," they yell at us. We
those who do not look "American." Were someone tocan imagine the same question being shouted by
yell at us, "Mexicans, go back where you came from!"someone defending State laws at the time of legal
we wouldn't know where to go.slavery in the South: all that counts is the fact that this
So what does this have to do with illegal immigrationNegro is the property of the slave owner; i.e., all that
and smuggling across the border with Mexico today?counts is the legality of the situation, not the morality. At
Don't the United States and individual States on thea later period of Europe's history, we could imagine a
border have not only the right but the obligation tocitizen of the Third Reich in Germany arguing that the
protect the border and enforce immigration laws?only relevant issue when confronted with Jewish
Don't all countries, including Mexico, do this? Doesn'tpeople being shipped to the "work" camps was the
Arizona, over-run by illegal immigrants and druglegal issue: German laws had been passed requiring
smugglers, and having to deal directly with the violencethis relocation of Jewish people. The question of the
and social cost of all this, have the right to legislatejustice and human dignity was set aside as a
relevant laws and take steps to protect its citizens?secondary question. Does a similar situation apply to
The answers to the last three questions is "yes," theour illegal immigrants today?
U.S. and individual States do the right and obligation toHistorically, we can ask how the policies of the U.S.
take legal steps to deal with illegal immigration andgovernment in relation to poor countries in our
other violations of the national border. But when wehemisphere have affected the economic status of
acknowledge this we should not oversimplify thethose countries, and affected the living conditions that
problem and think that legislation and toughafflict the majority of people in those countries. It would
enforcement will solve the problem. It won't; and evenbe comforting to believe that our country has always
defining the "social problem" is problematic. Contrary todone well in this respect, contributing positively, not only
what our 'super-patriots' contend, the problem is notto economic growth, but also to rising living standards in
simply one of legality and enforcement of the law.those countries. But studies of the problem might lead
But, what does the situation of my ancestors andus to contrary conclusions, and might lead us to
grandparents in New Mexico have to do with theconclude the policies of our government and our
problem of illegal immigration today?international corporations have contributed to the bad
Historically, the immigration problem in theeconomic and social conditions that compel people to
Southwestern U.S. must be understood in the contextmigrate to richer nations, whether they have legal
of three-to-four centuries of interaction between theadmission or not. Furthermore, we should not overlook
peoples of that region of the world, originalthe periods in our history when immigration from
pre-Columbian Americans (the real "Americans"); theMexico and Central America has been encouraged by
invaders from Europe, Spaniards, English, French, andemployers, both farming and non-farming employers,
other European colonial nations. From these came theeager to have a good supply of cheap labor.
people of mixed-ethnicities and races, people whoIt is true that the federal government should reform
became the Central Americans and Mexicans, residingimmigration laws and do a better job of controlling our
for centuries in Central America, Mexico and even inborders (not just the one with Mexico). The United
North America (those parts later conquered by theStates has to do a better job of controlling illegal
United States). During this period there were alwaysimmigration and a better job of reducing the entry and
invasions by superior military powers, redefining ofpresence of criminals, drug smugglers, and terrorists.
borders, mass migrations and mass re-definitions forBut doing this should not require that we treat others
peoples. For much of this period national borders mightwho simply seek work and a better life as
have defined where the territory of one nation endedsub-humans, unworthy of the ordinary values of
and that of another started; but they did not preventhuman dignity and fair play.