Evaluate my Skills

Hi everybody,

Well, I'd like to do two things here. First, I'd like to talk about an issue that I haven't addressed here yet. How I will do this is I will provide you with a rough draft of an essay I have to write for my composition class. This essay is what discusses the issue. First, there was an article we were asked to respond to in the essay, which I hope I can link to here. Below, I will give you my response, and you give me your feedback. You can tell me if I have any chops as an essayist.

One of America’s defining characteristics is that it is one of the first countries to encourage the idea of bringing people from many different places together. Americans often refer to theirs as a “nation of immigrants.” It is indeed true that people of many races and many lands have, and still continue to, come to this country in search of a better life, and a chance for a new opportunity. However, this is not the whole truth. The reality of America’s relationship with its newcomers has much more tension than this romantic image would suggest.
This is particularly true in this day and age. As the Union has evolved, the world has grown on an unprecedented scale. With this growth came new perils and threats from incoming foreigners. One concern is the massive influx of immigrants from the poor nation of Mexico, neighboring the country on its southern border near Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico.
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that as of January 2008, 7,000,000 of the total 11,600,000 immigrants who entered the US illegally came from Mexico. The next two largest sources of illegal immigration were El Salvador and Guatemala. Immigrants come from many other nations, but those poor nations in Latin America immediately to our South are, far and away, the largest sources of illegal immigration.
Samuel Huntington is particularly concerned about immigration from Mexico. He has penned an article titled “The Special Case of Mexican Immigration.” In it, he argues why immigration from Mexico is a particular challenge, threat, even, to our identity and security as a nation. As Huntington puts it, “Mexican immigration looms as a unique and disturbing challenge to our cultural identity…and potentially to our future as a country.” While Huntington is correct that Mexican immigration is a unique challenge, Huntington frames the issue incorrectly and thus misses the whole point of how the issue can best be solved.
First, Huntington describes an original American identity that started out as largely Protestant, and largely British, German and Dutch. He then worries that this new pool of immigrants coming from Latin America, most of whom are Roman Catholics, will not be aware that there is an “Anglo-Protestant culture, work ethic, and principles of the American creed” that they must assimilate to. The implication in this statement is that only those of Anglo-Protestant descent have a strong work ethic. It assumes that those of Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or other descent necessarily do not share a work ethic, a creed that characterizes American identity.
Such logic, intentional or not, would be grievously fallacious. Many immigrants turn out to be the hardest-working people in society. Victor Davis Hanson, who is none too comfortable with the state of immigration today, notes, “I also walk through the vineyards… and see whole families from Mexico, hard at work in the cold-while the native-born unemployed of all races will not…prune a single vine” (qtd. in Goshgarian 545-546)*. Those who come to the US, legally or illegally, appreciate all the more what the promise of opportunity America provides means. So they often work the hardest for that promise. As Todd Rosenbaum wrote in the Virginia Cavalier, the newspaper of the University of Virginia, “In the long term, allowing these immigrants improved access to higher education is likely to improve their contributions to our society and reduce the burdens they place on it”(qtd. in Goshgarian 575)*.
Huntington goes on to state that upon further exploration into the issue, he concludes that this is a problem on many levels. He then describes this as “the Mexican problem.” This is where Huntington begins to frame the issue poorly. Using the phrase “the Mexican problem,” or indeed, referring to any ethnic group as a “problem,” carries eerie shades of the “Jewish question” that Germany had in the 1930’s. Everyone now knows what the answer to the Jewish question was. This practice of mislabeling an entire group of people can have very serious consequences.
Huntington discusses the concentration of Mexicans in the Southwest, particularly in Southern California. While it is true that there are many Hispanic immigrants in Southern California, the Los Angeles area is not the only place immigrants go. The same Homeland Security document referenced earlier notes that in addition to California, areas with high immigrant concentrations include Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona, Illinois, Georgia, New Jersey and even North Carolina. It is easy, but wrong, to assume that the Los Angeles area is the only place where legal and illegal immigrants come to.
Huntington states that while other waves of immigration, such as those from Germany and Ireland, “came to and end fairly soon,” that this wave of immigration would not come to an end soon. He proposes that slowing birth rate and economic development in Mexico would take a long time. This is not entirely correct. For one thing, there are some immediate factors that are augmenting the problem that could be ended fairly quickly. These are the recent outbreak of flu and the bloody drug war, which would make it slightly more bearable to live in Mexico, while living conditions improve in Mexico. As long as living in those countries promises such bleak poverty, the only thing the United States can expect is a flood of immigrants desperate to live a menial life, because at least it is a life. Being poor in America is no picnic, but at least all the basic provisions are covered.
At the end, Huntington states that the scenario of one million Mexican civilians coming over the border is comparable to one million armed soldiers coming over the border. Again, this is a flawed statement. Huntington is perhaps referring to the risk lax immigration laws put on national security. A terrorist could enter the United States over a poorly patrolled border, or overstay a legitimate visa. Many of the September 11 hijackers used the latter tactic.
It is well understood that some change needs to be made to the current method of enforcement of immigration law. However, to presume that all illegal immigrants are armed terrorists would be wrong. Those who enter the United States to work and follow the law deserve at least a chance to live here, if they demonstrate that they are willing to do these things. As Harry Binswanger states, “seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act” (qtd. in Goshgarian, 577)*. Entering illegally is a criminal act. If the illegal is willing to accept penance and follow the above criteria, then at least an opportunity for a decent life should be granted them. After all, this is all that most of the illegal entrants want.
This is not to say that stronger enforcement is not needed. As was said earlier, this issue is crucial to security. Huntington is correct in that implication. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, FAIR, cites lax enforcement of law as undermining to national security, signaling a loophole for a would-be terrorist to exploit. Again, it must be emphasized here that only when an illegal has accepted a penalty, and has, after a time of some probationary period, demonstrated law-abiding tendencies, should legal status be considered. Those found to be potential threats to security must be dealt with accordingly.
Also, Binswanger noted that it is not a crime to seek a job. Those who seek often just need a job, anything to sustain them. The responsibility lies with the employers who hire the immigrants for short-term financial gain. The persistent lack of action against employers who exploit illegal immigrant labor in large numbers is what has created this massive negligence. Although many talk tough on illegal immigrants, little has actually been done in this regard to discourage illegal employment. Both FAIR and US Immigration Amnesty agree that more needs to be done to curb this lack of action, which is, in large part, what has perpetuated the current crisis.
What is more, international factors obviously affect the issue of immigration. As Huntington maintains, most of the illegal immigration comes from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and the like. It would not be as difficult to encourage development in these countries, since they are neighbors of the United States. Helping these nations develop their economies in a way that benefited the people of the countries would ensure that fewer people would be so desperate that they would break the law to come here. Huntington maintains that this would be “very long term,” but this is not entirely true. There are some factors that can be immediately addressed, like the recent outbreak of the flu, or the ongoing drug war. These are also national security issues for us, as well as the Mexicans, Guatemalans, and so forth. If the US can devote some of its resources to helping curb disease and violence in Mexico, which is spilling over the border into the US, it will not just be good for Mexico, it will be good for us. As we curb these trends, we can help Mexico develop in a more long term way, which will make life in Mexico more decent, and will give would-be illegal immigrants an option aside from the crime.

*-Citations from an anthology I used to find the material. In-text citations are required in all these essays.

What do you think? I'll tell you, when I went and showed it to the professor, his reaction was very positive. I look forward to hearing from you, the reeders, on what you think of my skills and what you think about this issue.

This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.