|
|
|
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
By Armando Vega
Staff Writer
Last Wednesday, April the 12th, UIS collaborated with fifteen other colleges nationwide on a Stanford University project: Deliberative Polling. The aim of the project is to foster discussion on key issues and disseminate information to voters, in order to provide for a more informed democracy.
As a participant, I was required to file an online survey beforehand revealing my stance and knowledge regarding the events theme: Immigration. The day started with a group breakfast and opening remarks by campus experts on political process. Briefing materials were additionally handed out, laden with objective facts, to assist in making subjective determinations. Participants were assigned to small groups of eight or less people, and discussion began under the purview of group moderators, who facilitated discussion by prompting questions and ensuring civility in the discussions (which did not appear to be a problem anyway; no hostility or any such incidents at all were reported).
Specifically, we were asked to consider two questions: the issue of in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants and also the issue of driver’s certificates for them. Feeling the need for a more broad-based discussion on the issue of illegal immigration, our group first discussed it as a whole before taking up the questions.
I volunteered to speak first, hoping to expose the false perceptions and stereotypes related to immigration and crime. In the briefing materials handed to us, various sources pointed out that in fact immigration and violent crime in this country have had no correlation over the past decade at least; in other words the crime-rate has had absolutely no relationship with immigration trends in this country, and one source listed even showed a negative correlation between the two variables (as immigration went up, homicides went down).
We attempted to hash out the issue of illegal immigration from various angles, noting the economics of the issue (the supply of, and demand for, cheap labor; cost-benefit analysis of whether undocumented workers “paid in” more than they “took out”), and legal and moral issues as well.
Finally we turned to the first question at hand, the issue of in-state tuition for undocumented residents. Seeing the issue primarily as one of national interest, I asked: is it not in our interests that anyone in our country who is able be given access to higher education? The issue is not asking if American’s should subsidize the educations of undocumented workers: no one there was advocating that. Undocumented workers are certainly not eligible for financial aid or federally-assisted private loans; no one there was making the case that they should be. The question was whether undocumented residents, even if they’d lived in their home-state for years and completed all educational requirements for admittance, should be allowed to pay tuition at in-state rates.
Furthermore, the issue of federalism unavoidably comes into play. If the federal government can impose restrictions even on what rates a state’s own public university can charge, will we continue to pretend this notion of “state’s rights” really exists?
Currently, state’s cannot deny K-12 education to students regardless of immigration status, in a 1982 Supreme Court decision in which the majority opined that it is in the best interests of the US to make sure that all children have a basic education with which they can contribute to society. In a competitive global economy where a high-school diploma is no longer sufficient as a baseline education, couldn’t the argument be extended for not only not denying state’s the right to do so, but to prohibit they themselves from impeding access to higher education for their, and the nation’s, residents?
The group broke for lunch, followed by a session with the expert panel of UIS: Hinda Seif, an assistant sociology and anthropology professor; Patrick Mullen, an assistant professor of public administration; and Sabohat Khalilova, a graduate student working toward her doctorate in public administration, all assisted groups with any questions which may have been on their minds.
Though not as straightforward in their answers as they might have been, the panel sought to clarify for us the legal immigration procedures, as well as addressing other questions. When asked about the cost-benefit analysis of illegal immigration in economic terms, it was noted that given the pay-ins of undocumented workers through property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, and even, believe it or not, payroll taxes often withheld by employers for FICA (it is estimated the Social Security’s trust fund would run out at least 4 years earlier were it not for the contributions from undocumented workers; significant given the mass retiring of the baby-boomers) and Medicare, and the impact on our markets the population has as consumers, most studies seemed to conclude that even undocumented immigrants are a net positive for this country (payouts are limited as many workers do not file taxes for which they’d most likely be eligible for refunds, and technically undocumented residents are not eligible for any form of government aid, though admittedly many manage to circumvent this by presenting false identification).
We returned to our small-group discussions, and when the issue turned briefly to assimilation I pointed out that eighty-eight percent of second-generation Latino immigrants were mastering the English language (I’d brought source-materials beforehand).
Someone sitting to my right then voiced his opinion that even the term “illegal immigrant” is foul, as immigration laws in this country fall under civil, and not criminal, law. It’s the equivalent of calling someone an “illegal” for breaking the terms of a contract.
We then proceeded to take up the matter of driver’s certificates for undocumented workers. Noone there was for the proposal, although the “conservative” and “liberal” voices opposed it for different reasons. The conservative’s argued that such a proposal would encourage greater illegal immigration, while the liberals present argued that it would in essence be a cop-out of confronting our broken immigration system as a whole, detracting from the real issues, even while acknowledging some of the potential benefits of the program.
We concluded the day for closing remarks and the completion of the same survey we’d been asked to take before, in order to determine the effects on public opinion on policy issues after discussion, expert assistance, and presentation of factual material.
The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and the idea that it is not capable of securing its own border is ridiculous. With increased infrastructure along the border, greater numbers of personnel, and the implementation of more technology, such as aerial surveillance units and sensors along hot-spots, it would be a fairly straightforward process to secure our border, drastically reducing the flow of undocumented immigrants into this country. American’s are certainly capable of resolving the immigration issue—at least technically. But the will for a fair solution must also be proffered by the American people. One example of such fair regulation would have been, in tandem with greater border security, passage of the DREAM Act, which would have offered conditional legal status and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented residents of good moral character who: had come to the US before the age of 16; had lived in the US for five continuous years; and had received a high school diploma or equivalent. Residents who complied with the provisions would be eligible for permanent residency only if, within six years, they: completed a two-year college program, completed two years at a four-year university, or had served two years in the U.S. military.
The bills passage failed in 2006, during the firestorm of immigration debates enveloping the country. It was not a proud time to be an American citizen, to see the Latino culture mocked and derided by nativists across the country, who laid the blame solely on the backs of immigrants seeking only a better life for themselves and their families. Many of the immigrants are direct descendants of the people whose land their ancestors had laid claim to anyway; in the interest of national unity and healing old wounds, those sorts of grievances can be forgotten if Americans would just offer a fair shake to our neighbors to the south. Don’t exploit their cheap labor, in a capitalist system that was imposed on them, and then falsely scapegoat them for all of the country’s problems like crime and recessions, while ignoring the slights of corporate America, particularly agribusiness, which solicits them in the first place.
The deliberative polling session was a great exercise, not only in democracy, but in humanity. It was sorely needed at a time when so many hold incomplete, or flat-out incorrect, beliefs on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal. The newest issue of Men’s Health magazine polled its readers and found that 74% of respondents viewed illegal immigration as mostly negative, 84% felt it “overburdens government services,” and 77% agreed that it “increases crime.” The former two queries are debated continuously by both sides, but to suggest that immigration, even illegal immigration, contributes to the crime rate just flat-out flies in the face of the facts. The Department of Justice, New York Times, Pew Hispanic Center, Public Policy Institute of California, and even Steven Levitt, celebrated economist-author of Freakonomics corroborate this, the latter showing that holding other variables such as income constant, the immigrant population is statistically shown to commit significantly less crime than American’s as a whole.
We as Americans need to change our very mind-sets in order to confront the problems facing us as a nation: everything from climate-change to immigration to terrorism can be dealt with; there’s an optimal solution for everything out there. Cynicism only leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure, and unchecked greed leads to an autocracy of businessmen who fill the vacuum of power left by impotent and incapable governments. Democracy doesn’t just happen when you go the polls once every four years and pull a lever, and to be honest we’re pretty lousy at doing even that, with only half of registered voters showing up to the polls to do so (this year could mark a substantial improvement). The Founding Fathers had made clear that for our nation to sustain a healthy and wise democracy, where all citizens would have a voice, would require a wise and informed electorate. Not quite sure we’d be up to the task; they created institutions such as the Electoral College and the election of national senators by state legislatures.
We have to start becoming more active participants of our democracy. You can’t just put it on auto-pilot; it doesn’t work that way. Barack Obama had it right when he stated so eloquently that it is not “the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics.” Thankfully, there have been some encouraging signs of improvement—the supplanting of television by a more democratic medium, the internet; satirical news shows drawing otherwise uninterested citizens into the political process, often while being just as informative as the “real” news; the massive voter interest shown thus far this election cycle; and, hopefully, what appears to be an increasing employment of deliberative polling sessions—but the work isn’t done yet. As Americans, let’s show the world that we’re not ready to fade out yet; we’ve only caught our second breath.
