Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Children of Immigrants Targeted by Tax Warfare in Congress
The fundamental injustice of the tax system grows clearer as tax day looms ominously over working people and a few horde more and more of the nation’s wealth. Short of a total collapse of capitalism, the primary redistributive remedy for this would be progressive taxation. But our tax policy gets it exactly backward, and its about to get a bit worse. And as with so many wars of attrition against the working class, this one begins by shafting disenfranchised communities, especially immigrants.
While the rich are rolling in tax giveaways, a few credits actually give poor folks a break -- for now.(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
While the rich are rolling in tax giveaways, a few credits actually give poor folks a break. One of these, the refundable child tax credit (CTC), applies to middle-class and poor parents alike and was claimed by some 21 million taxpayers in 2011, “which averaged about $676 per child and totaled $26.1 billion,” according to Politico. For poor families, the CTC, together with its big sister the Earned Income Tax Credit, provides a lifeline to keep them from plunging below the poverty line.
Now some lawmakers advocate cutting off the child tax credit for tax filers who lack of Social Security number. The move is unabashedly aimed at making life harder for undocumented workers, even taxpaying ones, specifically by punishing their children.
Currently, the CTC is one federal tax benefit that people can claim using an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) instead of a social security number. This effectively makes it available to undocumented workers—those who lack formal authorization.
The debate centers on whether children of undocumented workers, who are in many cases U.S.-born, should have the same modest benefits afforded to other working families. According to the First Focus Campaign for Children, the policy “could raise taxes on the families of more than 5.5 million children, including 4.5 million of whom are U.S. citizens.” Children of immigrants are disproportionately Latino and poor, with an estimated two in five poor children growing up in the Latino community.
In addition to being cruel toward immigrant families in general, the proposal is inlaid with the pernicious stereotypes of children of undocumented immigrants, who have been demonized as “anchor babies.” In fact, the canard of immigrant hordes procreating in hopes of using US-born kids as a springboard toward legalization is a myth peddled by anti-immigrant groups to stoke Malthusian demographic panic. But hey, an election year means open season on immigrants and endless bloviating about securing the border. Undocumented workers and other immigrants who cannot vote (despite being breadwinners and taxpayers for their families) can only watch as xenophobic spew greases the campaign trail.
Noting that child poverty is already aggravated by the economic crisis, First Focus President Bruce Lesley, President told In These Times, “When a policy makes it harder for children—any children—to succeed, that policy undermines America’s future.”
Some might argue the government should bar “illegal” workers from a benefit intended for hardworking citizens. Leaving aside the sheer bigotry of that logic, it runs counter to the sense that the real dysfunction in the tax system is that it keeps ungodly amounts of wealth in the hands of a tiny portion of the population—and all ordinary workers, whether they have papers or not, suffer the consequences.
Moreover, contrary to the popular stereotype that undocumented workers are a burden on the social service system, First Focus reports:
President George W. Bush’s U.S. Internal Revenue Service Commissioner testified to Congress that undocumented immigrants paid nearly $50 billion in federal income taxes using ITINs, during an eight-year period ending in 2003. The American Immigration Council reports that ITIN filers’ paid more than $9 billion in payroll taxes (which fund Social Security and [Medicare] systems for which undocumented immigrants are ineligible) during 2010.
So now lawmakers want to further exclude undocumented workers from the fiscal system, which already culls their wages to fund many Social Security and Medicare benefits that they can't redeem.
According to Politico’s analysis of a Treasury Inspector General report, “in 2010, 2.18 million ITIN filers collected about $4 billion in child tax credit refunds,” but they also “reported $46.3 billion in wages or an average of about $21,240 per household.” In other words, about 2 million really poor households got a little bit back to help care for their kids, and it’s on their backs that some fiscal hawks in Congress have decided to curb “waste, fraud and abuse” in the tax code.
If lawmakers are looking for “waste” in the tax code, they shouldn't look at child tax credits. The Center for American Progress points out that each $1 spent on the child tax credit yields $1.38 in economic growth. Meanwhile, extending the pro-rich Bush tax cuts would yield only about $0.35 on the dollar. And speaking of fraud and abuse, don’t forget that the same kind of tax warfare on Capitol Hill has stymied a proposal for a small surtax on income above $1 million, which would generate a cool $155 billion over a decade.
If you simply think taxpaying immigrants don’t deserve to live with the same dignity that others do, that’s one thing. If you are ideologically committed to punishing workers without papers through the tax code, you won’t be persuaded by these facts.
But reasonable hardworking people should understand that the real injustice of the tax system is that it’s rigged against the most vulnerable. While some in Washington try to exploit anti-immigrant sentiment for political gain, they’re ducking the problem that more and more of the 99 percent are confronting: the systemic fraud that feeds greed at the top and divides the poor against each other.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


49 Comments so far
Show AllMichelle, Michelle, getting slightly better but sill missing "illegal" before most instances of the word "immigrant" in your article. Baby steps are good tho...
I work with low income families. What I see is undocumented Hispanic men who come in illegally,and then hook up with an American woman. They move in together. She has a couple of children. Then he is deported or leaves anyway.
Sorry, I am just not seeing Hispanic families, where the Mother is Hispanic. I live in a Midwestern University town though, not California or another Border State.
It's not uncommon here in California for both parents if there are two to be undocumented.
They are still immigrants, but they are not legally entitled to be employed here. It's a complicated issue. It would appear that currently, paying taxes although admitting to be illegally employed is seen as a means to obtain legal immigrant status or citizenship. And the IRS has facilitated this, by processing returns filed under an ITIN, but also listing a fraudulent SSN as corresponding documentation as to earnings and withholdings. Convoluted means to and end.
I fault the IRS more than I do the workers. I personally think they're being exploited by the employers who can pay them lower wages, and the IRS who collects taxes, and promotes the paying of taxes as a means to citizenship (although it's not in the IRS's power to do so).
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/17/more_illegal_immigrants_are_rushing_to_file_taxes/?page=1
The public school bashing is just as bad; and the numbers who support Ron Paul a bit scary.
"when the funk did you all extreme right wingers start reading commondreams "
A long, long time before you showed up. Somebody has to express a different point of view. If you find it disturbing go hug yourself. It might help...
Oh, poor little baby can't take an opposing point of view. Did you try hugging like I suggested?
Ask naturalized citizens--across all cultures and nationalities--what they think of 'illegal' immigration, and what they say might surprise you. Let's reform immigration law if need be, and make everyone abide. Enough of this cat and mouse game! A lot of the problem could be handled with enhancement of the E-certify (sp?) program. What do you think would happen to you or I if we stole someone's SS, license, and other information (meaning identity theft)? Creating a double standard is not good for anyone. That said, I do not agree with separating parents from children, but many of the immigrants have started this [conflict] by bearing 'anchor' babies. Something seems amiss to me having children that you cannot support for an ulterior motive. Our immigration crises will only get worse and serve to divide our communities even more, if it's not addressed and reform implemented.
Total bullshit!
For most immigrants the legal - illegal status isn't even an issue and anchor babies are a phenomenon totally made up by right wing nuts.
"...anchor babies are a phenomenon totally made up by right wing nuts."
Fraid not, read this:
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/125.pdf
Repeal the 14th Amend and the system will have a better chance of helping those who should be helped.
All that your link says is that immigrants have children. It doesn't say anything about their motivation, and it doesn't say anything about anchor babies.
From Wikipedia:
"Anchor baby" is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents, who, as an American citizen, supposedly can later facilitate immigration for relatives. The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen and can later act as a sponsor for other family members.
In reality, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years. Additionally, though statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of illegal aliens are having children in the United States, there is little evidence that acquiring citizenship is their goal."
"Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, any person born in the United States are citizens of the country. As such, a U.S. citizen child is entitled to all benefits of American citizenship; they can be eligible for Medicaid, and when they are old enough, can receive in-state tuition from public colleges and work uninhibited. Citizen children can sponsor their parents for immigration to the U.S., but contrary to the belief, they cannot do this until they are 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his/her own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.
Additionally, U.S. citizen children can provide some benefits to their parents in the short term. Pregnant or nursing mothers can apply for food or nutritional vouchers through the federal WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program. Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status. Approximately 88,000 parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s. As such, according to the fact checking project PolitiFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship would be "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby
See also:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/
"Repeal the 14th Amend and the system will have a better chance of helping those who should be helped." I'd ask what you mean by that, but I don't even want to know.
That wiki article is full of BS. Lemme correct some stuff:
"Anchor baby" is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. The goal is appeal to bleeding hearts to let the illegal immigrant parents stay in the country.
So you think that several million unauthorized immigrants in the US have had 4 million children just to "appeal to bleeding hearts to let the illegal immigrant parents stay in the country", even if, according to the current law, they would have to wait 21 years to even apply, providing they have lived outside of the US for ten years prior to applying? I have to tell you, it seems brilliant: have a baby, stay in the US for 11 years, leave for 10 years, have your child sponsor you, wait several years to be authorized to be able to move to the US, and then wait several more years to be eligible to become a citizen. Hmm. What a great idea! I can totally see why millions of people would do it. I just wonder why some immigrants have more than one child. Just in case, I suppose.
Can you support your assertions with any evidence? I'd like to know how many people actually get their citizenship this way, so credible numbers, please, not just anecdotes.
I didn't say it's working. I said they are using their anchor babies to appeal to the sentiments of people like yourself to let them stay on "compassionate grounds". I agree that using them to get actual legal status is a lost cause.
" I said they are using their anchor babies to appeal to the sentiments of people like yourself . . ." And you know it how, exactly?
I can read your posts....
Clever non-answer. But the question wasn't about my sentiments. The question was about the parents' intentions. And I don't think the answer to that is that you can read my posts. Again, the question is: what evidence do you have for your assertion that the unauthorized immigrants have children to gain sympathy?
By the way, originally you claimed that they have children to gain citizenship. Then, you admitted that, in fact, it doesn't work, and now you claim they do it just to get sympathy, which apparently you can't back up either. What's next?
One last question: If these babies are in fact not anchors, meaning that they are unlikely to be the means by which the parents can gain citizenship, why call them anchor babies? If the parents have them just to get sympathy, why not call them sympathy babies, or pity babies? Is it because it would imply that you and your ilk are cold-blooded, heartless, callous, selfish monsters? We already know that you guys are sociopaths, so what's the big deal?
"By the way, originally you claimed that they have children to gain citizenship"
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said: "The goal is appeal to bleeding hearts to let the illegal immigrant parents stay in the country". Which I still maintain. when I said "using them to get actual legal status is a lost cause." i was referring to the fact that it takes 10+ years too get family members to immigrate.
"what evidence do you have for your assertion that the unauthorized immigrants have children to gain sympathy? "
Well, it might be the fact that bleeding hearts are opposed to deportations so as not to separate the children from the parents. I guess it never occurred to them the kids can actually go with the parents.
"We already know that you guys are sociopaths, so what's the big deal?"
Who's "we" and who's "you guys"?
OK, OK. I'm sorry. I've re-read this part of the thread. So it wasn't you who said that they have kids to gain citizenship. However, you still haven't answered my question what evidence you have for your assertion that the unauthorized immigrants have children to gain sympathy? Your answer is just your own speculation and nothing more.
The kids do go with the parents all the time and, as far as I know, people who get deported take their kids with them.
As far as who are "we" and "you guys", I thought that as a permanent troll here you'd be willing to be the official representative of the wrong wingnuttery? No?
You're either incredibly naive or a pro-amnesty/corporate shill. If the former, you're another armchair liberal that knows nothing about the culture or their motivations and intentions. You're swallowing it, hook line and sinker. My family has lived in the SW (New Mexico) for many generations, long enough to know when a Mexican is trying to pull the wool as they've obviously done to you. The anchor baby scam is real, and significant. One-third of Albuquerque Public schools are from non-English speaking households. Of course, the entrenched latino teachers union loves the student population, special bi-lingual classes and all. Meanwhile, property owners (taxes) are fed up and anyone with the means get their children in charter or private schools. This includes many mexican-american working class who are equally vocal in their anti-illegal sentiment.. I have friends and relatives in state social services and a son who used to work the ER in a local hospital and you better believe the illegals know how to work the system. Many of our state legislators are Hispanic and they prevent any real legal action being taken just to pander to all latinos. Case in point is our issuance of drivers licenses to illegals. 80% of the population and our Hispanic governor want the licenses revoked but these corrupt local politicians block it every time.
You know nothing of the lifestyle down here or the problems caused by illegal immigration. So sit back in your armchair and have a sip of latte and continue to spew your sanctimonious hogwash. While you're at it why don't you google Albuquerque crime statistics and check out the surnames on the police reports -especially a character named Galindo, that should get your attention. But hey, we'll deal with it. I can't wait til it gets to your door.
I suggest you spend some time in Mexico or even close to the border and see what's in store; better cherish your liberal ivory tower while you can........
"The anchor baby scam is real, and significant." Hmm. If you still insist on that, maybe you could define what you mean by the term, because it seems that your definition is somewhat different from the one that is generally accepted.
Is it really immigration per se (legal or otherwise) that is the problem, or is exploitation of the workers, both in the US and in South America, the root cause of it? If your answer to five hundred years of exploitation of South America is "let's deport them", then I don't know what to say. I suggest you read "Open Veins of Latin America" by Eduardo Galeano. Maybe it will open your eyes a little and you'll stop blaming the victim. Like a typical bully, you are afraid to take on the real culprit, so you take it out on the ones that are helpless and can't defend themselves. Shame on you.
Are you unknowingly obtuse or just being passive-aggressive?
Illegals are not helpless, that's your first mistake. You believe they are because that's the face they want you to see. You really don't know anything about their culture, do you?
Poor armchair liberals, can't wait til Mexico comes to a neighborhood near you. I've seen it with the many new-comers here in NM. At first they're, "wow, look at all the diversity", blah, blah, blah, then the reality sets in.
So you are not going to address my points.
Whatever.
This inane rant really helped your argument.
Have a great day.
Bea, I don't think anyone could provide you with the answers you want to hear. Your replies are semantics and loaded questions. I thought your inability to even say the word "illegal" was hilarious ("legal or otherwise"); proof that dogmatic obedience to political correctness is just another form of fundamentalism. We're all familiar with the pro-amnesty mantra, book-learned ideologies and those who live vicariously thru illegal immigrants so-called struggle. Have fun with that.
Do you have anything constructive to contribute? Stop waisting other's bandwidth with your insults. You're just making yourself look bad...
Oh, and here is another false assumption you are making: that in order for "people like me" to feel compassion it is necessary that the kids are American citizens. In fact, I don't give a damn if the kids are Mexicans, Americans, Afghans, or French. All I care is that their parents are poor, desperate, and have nowhere to go. All that thanks to corporate greed that wrecked their lives and is hell bent on squeezing out the last drop of sweat and blood from all of us, including you, Chameleon.
Christ, the things smug, dull-witted reactionaries say sometimes!
They're suckers for idiotic, self-serving fantasies that simply project and insulate their own ignorance.
This "anchor baby" canard reminds me of a similar idiocy I witnessed years ago, when a homophobic relative watching a report of a "Queer Nation" pride march on TV earnestly and self-righteously declared that in her opinion, people chose a gay lifestyle so they could spend all their money on themselves and "avoid responsibility".
This was a college-educated, married adult woman. And she believed it, too. Her sanctimonious, cranio-rectally inverted little mind could fit inside a walnut shell-- and it showed.
"They're suckers for idiotic, self-serving fantasies that simply project and insulate their own ignorance."
That goes both ways, OB. Some otherwise intelligent people refuse to see "what is." They serve whatever they identify with, whether contradictory or not. The selfish side of human nature, whether manifested culturally or otherwise, dictates much of what we do on both the individual and collective level. This is not a condemnation, only an observation. Casting aspersions, criticizing, condemning, accusing, insulting only serves to make others more vehemently adhere to their positions. If someone believes there is an advantage in doing something, they generally will, regardless of their cultural/tribal origin.
Also, it gives us a feeling of superiority to self-righteously say, "I'm right and you're wrong!" "I'm smart but you're dumb/ignorant." Closer to the the truth is that we all--to whatever degree--have blind areas and stubbornness within us. Seeing/acknowledging this is the beginning of authentic compassion. Real compassion has nothing to do with phony sympathy, or derive from a feeling of socially indoctrinated guilt, nor does it require one to relinquish sound reason.
Wow, never heard of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers before. What was the purpose of instituting them in 1996?
Employers are required by law to verify that an employee has a valid SSN.
The fact that in 1999 the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration "said the decision by the IRS to issue these Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) to illegal aliens "seems counter-productive to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) mission to identify illegal aliens and prevent unlawful entry." Leads me to some serious questions as to who benefited from instituting this new form of identification.
"Genesis of ITINs. The audit report referenced above said that a 1994 IRS investigation uncovered significant compliance problems "with the $80 billion annual nonresident alien U.S. investment income." In response, the IRS created an ITIN for non-resident aliens in order to match information documents showing dividend, interest and other income earned by individuals to the tax returns they file. The IRS began issuing ITINs in July 1996.
Either at the program’s inception or shortly thereafter, the IRS seems to have expanded the initial purpose of the ITIN by making a policy decision to issue it to resident aliens, including individuals residing illegally in the United States. The audit report referenced above questioned this policy to "legalize" illegal aliens.
Significant portions of the report were deemed to be so sensitive they were redacted from the public document, in part because it is felt that some information could be used to facilitate fraud by illegal aliens. Once an IRS report has been redacted, it stays that way. Therefore, the full text of the 1999 Inspector General for Tax Administration’s report on ITINs is still not available for public review. No follow-up report was issued."
"All publications from both the IRS and the SSA say that an individual can have either an ITIN or an SSN, but not both. But since employees suffer no penalty for using fraudulent SSNs, they continue to do so. Similarly, since employers benefiting from cheap labor also suffer no penalty, they continue to hire illegal aliens without checking the validity of their SSNs. Once someone is hired, employers begin to withhold taxes.
It is believed that far more ITINs have been issued than annual tax returns filed and that illegal residents who file returns do so to claim refunds. If so, presumably they use the ITIN provided by the IRS as their identifier on the 1040 Form, attaching the W-2 form provided by their employer. The catch is that their fraudulently obtained SSNs appear on the W-2 forms. Illegal aliens can obtain a SSN in a variety of ways. They can make up a number, steal or borrow someone else’s, buy a counterfeit Social Security card, or obtain a valid Social Security card fraudulently.10 What is abundantly clear is that they are not entitled to it.
Knowing that the ITIN would not be necessary if the SSN were legitimate, apparently the IRS has been processing the returns anyway — ignoring this clear violation of its own rules. "
http://www.cis.org/IRSTaxID-ImmigrationLaw
I smell something and it doesn't smell pretty. And it has nothing to do with anti-immigrant sentiment. I am wondering how something created for non-resident aliens in order to match information documents showing dividend, interest and other income earned by individuals to the tax returns became a means of circumventing the use by resident workers in place of social security numbers? Was this negotiated in NAFTA and eased into place?
Tax the rich, feed the kids? Sounds like a revolutionarily great idea.
"But reasonable hardworking people should understand that the real injustice of the tax system is that it’s rigged against the most vulnerable. "
That's true, but it ignores the fact that they are not legally entitled to be employed here. It also does not examine why the IRS would make it easier for these people to file their taxes and presume exemptions without explaining to them that paying taxes in no way confers the privileges of legal residency.
Somewhere the word "illegal" dropped out of this discussion. It is not against immigrants to demand a SSN. There is no anti-immigrant movement in the US except maybe in Coeur d'Alene. My wife is an immigrant and she works for a corporation that is mostly immigrants.
Limiting government benefits to citizens and those here legally seems like a great idea. Remember that illegal aliens are taking jobs and depressing wages at the bottom of the pay scale where everyone must start out in life.
Illegal immigration is as much the enemy of the Progressive as is corporate greed, indeed they are intertwined. To get rid of the one, we need to end the other.
"Limiting government benefits to citizens and those here legally seems like a great idea." - But accepting immigrants' "illegal" money apparently is not a problem for you, lawmakers, or the IRS.
"Illegal immigration is as much the enemy of the Progressive as is corporate greed . . . ." May I suggest you focus on corporate greed first? In fact, I think that if you took care of corporate greed, the problem of "illegal Immigration" would simply disappear - there you go: two birds with one stone. How about that?
Thank you, BEA. There is a decided "Humanity Deficit" being exhibited on this thread. You nailed the key factor. Were there no NAFTA, Mexicans wouldn't have risked their lives crossing the border to clean bathrooms at some fast food joint in Arizona, or to pick strawberries 13 hours a day in Florida or California.
It's been termed "The Scarcity Mentality" that makes of some, virtual Ebeneezer Scrooges. As if the poor immigrants' meager wages in ANY way mess with your lives. If you want to argue that the influx of a cheap labor pool is a problem, then argue against the elites who set this matter into motion. It IS cruel to take it out on people who are desperately trying to feed their families.
I've seen some enlightened people in this forum raise the stakes as per the OWS movement in urging all of us to find common cause with our fellow workers across the ocean. That worldwide protests show that we, the 99% have more in common with each other, across national borders, than with the small band of elites who work the world's economies on puppet strings... forcing too many of us to dance to their drummers.
It takes empathy to imagine walking in someone else's moccasins; and if you picture what that walk meant in leading thousands away from their native lands (because US farm subsidies made it impossible for Indigenous farmers to compete growing the same products and thus make a living) you become a more integrated HUMAN being. Try giving a damn about your fellow man... you might find that you'll grow a heart in the process.
"Were there no NAFTA, Mexicans wouldn't have risked their lives crossing the border"
NAFTA came into effect in 1994. Please do not tell me there wasn't any illegal immigration before that. The Reagan amnesty alone made abt 2.5 million legal.
"As if the poor immigrants' meager wages in ANY way mess with your lives."
Actually, that's the good part cuz you get cheap produce. But it gets more than offset by the drain on the social services (school, med care, etc).
"NAFTA came into effect in 1994. Please do not tell me there wasn't any illegal immigration before that." - So you think that prior to NAFTA there was no US involvement in Latin American affairs? Chameleon, I hate to say it, but you are incredibly ignorant.
I assume you meant that remark for Rose. I was just correcting her statement that said: "Were there no NAFTA, Mexicans wouldn't have risked their lives crossing the border"
I definitely wasn't referring to Siouxrose.
Your "correction" is either incredibly ignorant, or else irrelevant. You tell us which one it is.
"If you want to argue that the influx of a cheap labor pool is a problem, then argue against the elites who set this matter into motion."
Thank you, Siouxrose. This seems so patently obvious to me that I can't fathom how anyone can think that blaming the victim will solve anything.
Great article, Michelle. Informative - I learned something.
Five more sane & humane remedies:
1. Cut the Military budget
2. Cut off pork barrel spending
3. Rescind tax cuts to the rich
4. Apply a Tobin Tax to Wall Street Transactions
5 Go after off-shore tax sheltered funds
(I haven't read the thread, so I apologize if someone else beat me to the punch on the obvious!)
This issue vexes me like a recurring itch. My mother was born in Germany, just Jewish enough to qualify for Hitler's Final Solution. Her father, a long-established medical doctor and scholar of Ancient History, had the means to move his family out of Hamburg in 1936, and so my mother arrived in Brooklyn at age 14. I think she attended Erasmus Hall, and/or maybe that special technical school they have.
Two of her older brothers did not fare as well. The older one left Hamburg for Jamaica before 1936, and did quite well in the commodities markets, while the younger was sent in 1936 to Jamaica to apprentice to his elder and later became a skilled neon-sign glass blower.
When the European War broke out (before U.S. entry), German nationals in all the British Isles came under suspicion. Just as during the war, the U.S. rounded up virtually all Japanese and put them in camps, the Brits did to their German Nationals. My two uncles, who had fled Hitler's Germany, were placed in an "Enemy Alien Camp" in Jamaica for most of the war. Their bunkmates were mostly other Germans, and mostly Nazi! The younger uncle wrote a two-volume book about that time. He had retired by then as an industrial engineer in the U.S. The elder put his finances in order and moved the family to Canada.
So, ... the immigration/emigration issue has been with us since time immemorial. As for the Mexican immigration issue, I spent a few months in Albuquerque in the Sixties. Visited Juarez (ciudad?). Coming from Ohio, New Mexico was a real culture clash. I was far more the Stranger there than were the Mexicans.
I suspect that as long as we have nations, imm/emigration will remain a moving target for chauvinistic politicians who use our differences to foment hate. It is an extremely complex issue. Thus, for example, under the 14th Amendment, because I was born in New York in 1943, I am a U.S. Citizen. But my mother, a German National, could have been deported, to god knows where! (Luckily for me, she married an RLDS atheist Mormon bacteriologist from The Iowas. Lucky me.
I have no certain or clear answers here, other than to dismiss any politician who would bring these issues down to a few sound-bites in a multi-million dollar campaign, when that money ought to be REDISTRIBUTED to those who can use it with more wisdom.
-30-
What a story! Thank you for sharing it, OleManRiver.
Again, the same rules laws/rules need to apply to every nationality regarding immigration. When we start making exceptions for one group over another, we're begging for conflict and trouble. Many who post here seem to want completely open borders. It is true that we live in a miserable, sick world with inequality and economic gradients of all kinds. Open borders would certainly equalize things in one respect, but not sure we'd want the consequences that go along with it. Compassion is one thing, self-destruction is another. Efforts perhaps need to be made in the international arena first. In the world we live economic inequality is the rule rather than the exception, as ugly as that might be. Society will have to be transformed on many levels before open borders can be addressed. Neither side seems to want to give inch, or even discuss the many problems this issue is generating; instead, there is only increasing polarization. How do we get beyond this?
Well, what would happen if we suddenly opened our borders, given the state of the world as it is? The poorest people would flock here from China, India, Philippines, all of Mexico and south America, Africa, ad infinitum. What do you think would be the practical consequences of this? Where would they stay? Where would they work? Who would pay for it? By the way, I am not anti-immigrant, and am much closer to the issue than most (my wife is an immigrant). We both agree that the process of naturalization is arduous and even embarrassing in many respects, but we also understand the need for limits. Heck, if they opened the borders, all of her brothers and sisters would want to fly over. Even so, we'd be unable to provide for their needs until they got settled. The same principle applies to our communities and infrastructure. In a utopian world there would be no borders; however, we're far, far away from that (unfortunately).
No, we definitely cannot have poor people flocking to the US. Poor people should stay in China, India, Philippines, Mexico, South America, Africa, etc., where they can be exploited by international corporations, so that Americans can buy cheap crap.
And if there were no borders, where would you drop the missiles?
"How do we get beyond this?"
Certainly not by mindlessly repeating right-wing memes.
Nor, left wing, middle wing, or wing-nut wing memes. We all have our cherished personal 'memes,' do we not? As old man river says, immigration is a very complex and nuanced issue. Who wants to say no to those who are suffering? Yet, what good does it serve if you get pulled in a hole, while trying to help another out? Granted, it's difficult to admit to limits, but we have to face them nonetheless. The right-wing secretly loves illegal immigration, or at least the cheap labor that profits them, and the business interests they serve. They love to play us both ways!